Following earlier studies which showed that a sparse coding principle may explain the receptive field properties of complex cells in primary visual cortex, it has been concluded that the same properties may be equally derived from a slowness principle. In contrast to this claim, we here show that slowness and sparsity drive the representations towards substantially different receptive field properties. To do so, we present complete sets of basis functions learned with slow subspace analysis (SSA) in case of natural movies as well as translations, rotations, and scalings of natural images. SSA directly parallels independent subspace analysis (ISA) with the only difference that SSA maximizes slowness instead of sparsity. We find a large discrepancy between the filter shapes learned with SSA and ISA. We argue that SSA can be understood as a generalization of the Fourier transform where the power spectrum corresponds to the maximally slow subspace energies in SSA. Finally, we investigate the trade-off between slowness and sparseness when combined in one objective function.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2014.
All research outputs
#21,630,140
of 27,364,796 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,236
of 9,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,390
of 239,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#110
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,364,796 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
