Context dependent adaptation in a neural computation

Charles J. Edelson; Rob R. de Ruyter van Steveninck; Sima Setayeshgar; William Bialek

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Context dependent adaptation in a neural computation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fly motion-sensitive neuron adapts its velocity response to the distribution of image contrast, and nearly all of that adaptation is captured by a single dominant direction in stimulus space.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of context-dependent contrast adaptation in H1; the low-rank claim is plausible but rests on a weak SVD significance test. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01760 v1 pith:AN4J3PAV submitted 2025-09-01 q-bio.NC physics.bio-ph

Charles J. Edelson , Sima Setayeshgar , William Bialek , Rob R. de Ruyter van Steveninck This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.NCphysics.bio-ph

keywords flyvisualsystemH1neuroncontrastadaptationcontextdependencespike-triggeredaveragelow-rankrepresentationefficientcodingsensory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a sensory neuron adapts not just to the current level of a stimulus but to the statistical context in which that stimulus appears. Using the fly motion-sensitive neuron H1, the authors deliver naturalistic movies in which the velocity is white noise, the contrast fluctuates on an intermediate timescale, and the dynamic range of contrast changes only slowly. They show that the neuron's velocity filter, measured as a spike-triggered average, depends on both contrast and context: the same contrast produces different responses when it comes from a narrow versus a wide distribution. The context-dependent changes are low-dimensional, dominated by a single mode, and the integration time of the response tracks the mean interval between spikes, suggesting the system is continually balancing noise reduction against redundancy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contrast-conditioned spike-triggered average STA(τ;C), a matrix that records the average velocity trajectory preceding a spike when the contrast at the relevant past time falls in a small bin around C. Because velocity is white noise, the STA is proportional to the neuron's linear filter, so changes in the STA are changes in the computation itself. The analysis stacks these matrices across contrast bins and across context values into one large matrix and applies singular value decomposition; the significant singular vectors become the basis functions in which adaptation occurs. A separate exponential-with-delay fit to each STA provides the integration time τint, whi

What would settle it

Perform the same singular-value significance test on surrogates that preserve the temporal correlations in the STA residuals, for example by block-shuffling along the time axis or adding smoothed Gaussian noise with the measured power spectrum. If the second singular value falls below the surrogate noise floor, the two-dimensional description is not supported; if it survives, the claim is strengthened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that H1's response to visual motion adapts to the full distribution of contrast, not just to the instantaneous contrast level. By conditioning spike-triggered averages on contrast, STA(τ;C), and repeating this for several contrast dynamic ranges (clim), the authors find that a given contrast value evokes different responses depending on the context. Stacking all the contrast-conditioned STAs and performing a singular value decomposition, only two modes are significant: the dominant mode's weight depends almost entirely on contrast scaled by the dynamic range, U1(C,clim)=g(C/clim), while the second mode depends on absolute contrast. As a consequence, the neuron's highest

Load-bearing premise

The rank-two claim depends on the noise in the spike-triggered averages being statistically independent at each time point; the actual residual noise is visibly correlated in time, so the number of genuinely significant dimensions could be one or three under a more realistic noise model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The response to a given contrast is not a fixed property of the neuron; it is normalized by the dynamic range of contrasts recently experienced.
Because the dominant dimension scales as C/clim, efficient coding can be achieved by adapting to the distribution's range, while the weaker absolute-contrast dimension may resolve the resulting ambiguity on longer timescales.
The relation τint≈1/r̄ means H1 stays in the one-spike-per-event regime, where successive spikes carry nearly independent information and rate-code redundancy is avoided.
Context dependence persists for contrast correlation times from 0.25 s to 15 s, showing that the adaptive mechanism is not tied to a single timescale.
Together with earlier work on adaptation to velocity distributions, the results support a general principle: neural computation adapts quantitatively to the distribution of sensory inputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is to repeat the singular-value significance analysis with surrogate noise that preserves the temporal correlations visible in the STA residuals; if the second mode then falls below the noise floor, the claim should be reduced to a single dominant dimension.
If the pattern generalizes, other sensory neurons with mixed selectivity may show similarly low-rank context dependence, with separate dimensions for distribution-scaled and absolute stimulus features.
The clean separation between a scaled dimension and an absolute dimension suggests a two-pathway model: one divisive gain-control mechanism tracking recent dynamic range, and one slower mechanism tracking absolute contrast.
A behavioral test could ask whether flies' optomotor responses track the context-dependent STA shapes rather than instantaneous contrast, connecting the observed filter changes to actual flight control.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a solid experimental paper. The main qualitative result — that H1's velocity STA depends on absolute contrast and, at the same contrast, on the distribution of contrast it comes from — is directly supported by the data and doesn't rely on the fancier analysis. That alone makes it a useful contribution.

The new bits are real: the explicit demonstration of context-dependent contrast adaptation in a motion-sensitive neuron, the low-rank SVD characterization of the STA family, and the observation that integration time tracks the mean interspike interval (τ_int ≈ 1/r̄). The stimulus design is careful, with a clean separation of timescales, and the replication across eight flies is reassuring.

The soft spot is the SVD significance test in Fig. 4. The null is a random 90×100 matrix with i.i.d. entries from the marginal distribution of the real STA elements. But the STA estimates are averages over the same spike train, so the sampling noise is correlated across time bins — the paper itself acknowledges this in Section III.A. An i.i.d. null can misestimate the noise floor, so the number of significant modes (two) is not yet firmly established. If a third mode survives a correlated-noise surrogate, Eq. (19) and the abstract's 'single dominant dimension' need revision; if only one survives, the second mode's proposed role in encoding absolute contrast is unsupported. This is the load-bearing unverified step.

Two smaller issues: Fig. 6's scaling collapse has no error bars, so 'a very good approximation' is hard to judge, and the abstract says 'single dominant dimension' while the body says two significant modes. The exponential fit in Eq. (21) is a modeling assumption, though the examples in Fig. 8 look reasonable. No code or data are released, so these statistical details can't be checked independently.

None of this breaks the central claims. The context dependence is visible in Fig. 3 without any SVD, and the τ_int vs. r̄ relation in Fig. 7 is independent of the rank test. This paper deserves a serious referee, and I'd be happy to discuss it in a reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an experimental study of context-dependent adaptation in the fly motion-sensitive neuron H1. The authors use naturalistic synthetic stimuli with a clean separation of time scales: fast white-noise velocity, contrast c(t) varying with correlation time τc = 500 ms, and a slowly changing contrast dynamic range clim defining the context. They measure contrast-conditional spike-triggered averages STA(τ; C) and show that the response at fixed absolute contrast depends on clim. An SVD of the stacked STA matrices is claimed to reveal two significant modes, with the dominant mode scaling as C/clim and the second depending on absolute contrast. Finally, the effective integration time extracted from exponential fits is found to approximately obey r̄ τint ≈ 1 across contrast and context, which is interpreted as redundancy reduction. The main evidence is phenomenological and largely qualitative.

Significance. If correct, the results are significant: they document a form of distributional/context adaptation in a well-characterized neuron and propose a remarkably simple low-dimensional structure, plus a striking matching of integration time to spike interval that connects to efficient coding ideas. Strengths include carefully controlled stimulus design, long stable recordings, replication across eight flies, and an honest statement that no increase in per-spike information was found. The empirical r̄ τint ≈ 1 relation is not forced by construction and is a concrete falsifiable claim. However, the central low-rank and context-dependence claims rest on statistical and design choices that need to be strengthened before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B, Fig. 4] The rank determination uses an i.i.d. null model: random 90×100 matrices whose elements are drawn independently from the marginal distribution of the real STA entries. This does not match the error structure of the data. The STAs are averages over overlapping spike-triggered trajectories, so sampling errors are correlated across τ bins; the paper itself notes in the Section III.A footnote that 'the noise is a little larger because not all samples are independent.' An i.i.d. null can therefore misestimate the singular-value noise floor, and the conclusion that exactly two modes are significant is load-bearing for Eq. (19) and the abstract's 'single dominant dimension.' I request a surrogate null that preserves temporal correlations (e.g., phase randomization of STA rows or bootstrap resampling over spike trains) and/or a cross-validated rank assessment (e.g., reconstruction error for rank
[Appendix B; Section II.C] The six context conditions were presented in fixed order from the lowest to the highest contrast, with all main-text results from a single fly. The central demonstration of context dependence (Fig. 3) compares responses at the same absolute contrast C = 0.25 across these sequential blocks. A slow drift in recording quality, receptor state, or carryover adaptation from the preceding block is therefore an alternative explanation for the observed differences. Please state whether the order was randomized across the eight replication flies, or provide evidence of temporal stability (e.g., by repeating one context at a later time and showing the same STA). Without such a control, the 'context dependence' claim is vulnerable to a time/order confound.
[Section III.C, Fig. 7] The statement that 'almost no points significantly above this line' is not backed by a quantitative comparison. The figure appears to show error bars on r̄, while the text in Appendix D gives bootstrap estimates of τint variability, but it is not stated whether these τint uncertainties are displayed or propagated. Since the redundancy-reduction conclusion in the abstract and Discussion rests on the tightness of r̄ τint ≈ 1, please report the uncertainties in τint and provide a statistical test of the scatter about the line, for example a reduced chi-square or bootstrap confidence intervals for the product r̄ τint.

minor comments (4)

[Eqs. (14), (18), (21)] The lag convention for τ is inconsistent: Eq. (14) defines STA(τ) = ⟨v(t_i + τ)⟩, while Eq. (18) uses v(t_i − τ), and Eq. (21) is written as STAfit(−τ). Please define τ unambiguously (e.g., τ > 0 as time before the spike) and keep the sign convention uniform throughout.
[Abstract; Section III.B] The abstract says 'a single dominant dimension,' but the analysis concludes that two modes are significant. Clarify whether 'dominant' refers to the relative size of S1 versus S2, or whether only one mode is claimed to be significant; the current wording is stronger than the two-mode decomposition in Eq. (19).
[Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to 'clim = 0.15%' in the text; this should presumably be 'clim = 0.15'.
[Section III.A; Section II.A] The claim that results are 'qualitatively similar' for τc = 0.25–15 s is not accompanied by data or a figure. Since the main text shows only τc = 500 ms, either show the additional conditions or soften the claim about the 'wide range of conditions.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central results are empirical measurements whose definitions do not presuppose the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its main conclusions from a model; it measures them. STA(τ;C) is defined by Eq. (18) as a conditional spike-triggered average, and the context comparison (Fig. 3) is a direct measurement over the same stimulus ensemble. The low-rank representation in Eq. (19) is the truncated SVD of the measured 90×100 matrix; the number of retained modes is decided by a random-matrix null, not by the claim itself. The integration time τint is obtained by fitting Eq. (21) to each STA, and the mean rate r̄ is measured separately via Eqs. (D1)–(D2); neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, so the observed clustering around r̄τint=1 (Fig. 7) is an empirical finding rather than a tautology. The paper's citations to the authors' prior work ([30–33,36,47,52,53]) supply background and interpretive framing—e.g., the optimal scaling solution in [32] and the one-spike-per-characteristic-time regime in [36]—but are not used to generate the new measurements. The main caveat is statistical, not circular: the SVD significance null in Sec. III.B draws independent matrix elements from the marginal distribution, whereas footnote 4 in Sec. III.A acknowledges that the STA noise is correlated because samples are not independent; this could affect the number of significant modes, but it does not make the low-rank claim definitionally true. No circular step of the kind listed can be identified with the required quote-and-reduction evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mechanistic entities or fitted model parameters beyond the descriptive exponential fit. The central claims rest on standard STA theory, the stimulus design's separation of time scales, and two analysis assumptions (the SVD null model and the exponential fit) that are reasonable but not independently verified.

free parameters (1)

Exponential STA fit parameters (tau_int, tau_delay, a1, a2) = Not reported numerically; tau_int ranges roughly 10-100 ms across conditions (Fig. 7)
Fitted to each contrast-conditional STA via Eq. (21) using MATLAB fminsearch; tau_int is the key derived quantity used in the claimed rbar*tau_int ~ 1 relation, while the other parameters are auxiliary for the fit.

assumptions (5)

standard math For Gaussian white noise velocity inputs, the spike-triggered average is proportional to the neuron's linear response filter (Eq. 17, citing de Boer & Kuyper 1968).
Used to justify interpreting the STA as the neuron's filter in Section II B.
domain assumption The stimulus design separates time scales: velocity varies fastest, contrast correlation time tau_c=500 ms is an order of magnitude longer than the STA integration time (~50 ms), and the contrast dynamic range (context) changes on ~30 min blocks.
Ensures that conditioning the STA on contrast at a lag isolates adaptation to the local contrast rather than a direct response to contrast changes (Sections II A, II B).
domain assumption The synthetic natural scene, generated as binarized 1/f spatial noise (Eqs. 4-5), captures the relevant spatial statistics of natural scenes for H1, motivated by scale invariance of natural images (Refs. 43-45).
Underpins the naturalistic relevance of the stimuli and the choice of scene statistics.
ad hoc to paper The SVD significance test uses a null model of random 90x100 matrices with elements drawn i.i.d. from the distribution of the real STA matrix elements (Section III B, Fig. 4).
Assumes the real noise is i.i.d., which is unlikely given the temporal smoothness of the STAs; this affects the estimated rank of the adaptation subspace.
ad hoc to paper All contrast-conditional STAs are assumed to have the form of a time-shifted exponential decay (Eq. 21).
Interprets the fitted time constant tau_int as the integration time (Section III C, Appendix D); if the true STA shape differs, the relation to spike rate could be an artifact of the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Context dependent adaptation in a neural computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AN4J3PAV

@misc{pith2026250901760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Context dependent adaptation in a neural computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AN4J3PAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01760}
}

read the original abstract

Brains adapt to the statistical structure of their input. In the visual system, local light intensities change rapidly, the variance of the intensity changes more slowly, and the dynamic range of contrast itself changes more slowly still. We use a motion-sensitive neuron in the fly visual system to probe this hierarchy of adaptation phenomena, delivering naturalistic stimuli that have been simplified to have a clear separation of time scales. We show that the neural response to visual motion depends on contrast, and this dependence itself varies with context. Using the spike-triggered average velocity trajectory as a response measure, we find that context dependence is confined to a low-dimensional space, with a single dominant dimension. Across a wide range of conditions this adaptation serves to match the integration time to the mean interval between spikes, reducing redundancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01760 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Contrast dependent spike triggered averages, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The STA( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Singular values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Significant components of the SVD decomposition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The contribution of the dominant mode to the STA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Integration time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Example of contrast-conditional STAs and their ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

R. E. Lenski, PLoS Genetics 13, e1006668 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

S. M. Block, J. E. Segall, and H. C. Berg, Journal of Bacteriology 154, 312 (1983)

work page 1983
[3]

E. D. Adrian, The Basis of Sensation: The Action of the Sense Organs (W. W. Norton, New York, 1928)

work page 1928
[4]

B. Wark, B. N. Lundstrom, and A. Fairhall, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 17, 423 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

A. I. Weber, K. Krishnamurthy, and A. L. Fairhall, An- nual Review of Vision Science 5, 427 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

H. B. Barlow, in National Physical Laboratory Sympo- sium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, Volume 2 (HM Stationery Office, London, 1959) pp. 537–574

work page 1959
[7]

H. B. Barlow, in Sensory Communication, edited by W. A. Rosenblith (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961) pp. 217–233

work page 1961
[8]

S. B. Laughlin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung 36c, 910 (1981)

work page 1981

Show all 74 references

[9]

S. M. Smirnakis, M. J. Berry, D. K. Warland, W. Bialek, and M. Meister, Nature 386, 69 (1997)

1997
[10]

Egelhaaf and R

M. Egelhaaf and R. Kern, Current Opinion in Neurobi- ology 12, 699 (2002)

2002
[11]

Bialek, R

W. Bialek, R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, and N. Tishby, in 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2006) pp. 659–663

2006
[12]

Kohn, Journal of Neurophysiology 97, 3155 (2007)

A. Kohn, Journal of Neurophysiology 97, 3155 (2007)

2007
[13]

Bialek, Biophysics: Searching for Principles(Prince- ton Univerity Press, Princeton NJ, 2012)

W. Bialek, Biophysics: Searching for Principles(Prince- ton Univerity Press, Princeton NJ, 2012)

2012
[14]

M. A. Webster, Annual Review of Vision Science 1, 547 (2015)

2015
[15]

S. E. Palmer, O. Marre, M. J. Berry, and W. Bialek, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 112, 6908 (2015)

2015
[16]

Tkaˇ cik and W

G. Tkaˇ cik and W. Bialek, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 89 (2016)

2016
[17]

Potters and W

M. Potters and W. Bialek, Journal de Physique I 4, 1755 (1994)

1994
[18]

Weiss, E

Y. Weiss, E. P. Simoncelli, and E. H. Adelson, Nature Neuroscience 5, 598 (2002)

2002
[19]

Barlow, Vision Research 30, 1561 (1990)

H. Barlow, Vision Research 30, 1561 (1990)

1990
[20]

D. C. Knill and W. Richards, eds., Perception as Bayesian Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 1996). 12

1996
[21]

S Dorkenwald, A

A. S Dorkenwald, A. Matsliah, A. R. Sterling, P. Schlegel, S.-C. Yu, C. E. McKellar, A. Lin, M. Costa, K. Eich- ler, Y. Yin, W. Silversmith, C. Schneider-Mizell, C. S. Jordan, D. Brittain, A. Halageri, K. Kuehner, O. Oge- dengbe, R. Morey, J. Gager, K. Kruk, E. Perlman, R. Yan...

2024
[22]

Borst and L

A. Borst and L. N. Groschner, Annual Review of Neuro- science 46, 17 (2023)

2023
[23]

L. G. Bishop and D. G. Keehn, Nature 212, 1374 (1966)

1966
[24]

Pierantoni, Cell and Tissue Research 171, 101 (1976)

R. Pierantoni, Cell and Tissue Research 171, 101 (1976)

1976
[25]

Hausen, in Photoreception and Vision in Inverte- brates

K. Hausen, in Photoreception and Vision in Inverte- brates. NATO ASI Series Volume 74, edited by M. A. Ali (Springer, Boston, MA, 1984) pp. 523–559

1984
[26]

H. G. Krapp, Navigation 55, 147 (2008)

2008
[27]

S. J. Huston and H. G. Krapp, PLoS Biology 6, e173 (2008)

2008
[28]

T. W. Ullrich, R. Kern, and M. Egelhaaf, Biology Open 4, 13 (2014)

2014
[29]

H. Wei, H. Y. Kyung, P. J. Kim, and C. Desplan, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 206, 139 (2020)

2020
[30]

Maddess and S

T. Maddess and S. B. Laughlin, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 225, 251 (1985)

1985
[31]

R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, W. Zaagman, and H. Mastebroek, Biological Cybernetics 54, 223 (1986)

1986
[32]

Brenner, W

N. Brenner, W. Bialek, and R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, Neuron 26, 695 (2000)

2000
[33]

A. L. Fairhall, G. D. Lewen, W. Bialek, and R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, Nature 412, 787 (2001)

2001
[34]

Reisenman, J

C. Reisenman, J. Haag, and A. Borst, Vision Research 43, 1293 (2003)

2003
[35]

Flanagin, Dynamic Adaptation in Fly Motion Vi- sion, Ph.D

V. Flanagin, Dynamic Adaptation in Fly Motion Vi- sion, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig–Maximilians–Universit¨ at, M¨ unchen (2006)

2006
[36]

Rieke, D

F. Rieke, D. Warland, R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, and W. Bialek, Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code(MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1997)

1997
[37]

Brenner, S

N. Brenner, S. P. Strong, R. Koberle, W. Bialek, and R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, Neural Computation 12, 1531 (2000)

2000
[38]

de Ruyter van Steveninck and W

R. de Ruyter van Steveninck and W. Bialek, in Mod- els of Neural Networks IV: Early Vision and Attention (Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2002) pp. 313–371

2002
[39]

Nemenman, G

I. Nemenman, G. D. Lewen, W. Bialek, and R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, PLoS Computational Biology 4, e1000025 (2008)

2008
[40]

Chichilnisky, Network: Computation in Neural Sys- tems 12, 199 (2001)

E. Chichilnisky, Network: Computation in Neural Sys- tems 12, 199 (2001)

2001
[41]

R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, G. D. Lewen, S. P. Strong, R. Koberle, and W. Bialek, Science 275, 1805 (1997)

1997
[42]

de Boer and P

E. de Boer and P. Kuyper, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 15, 169 (1968)

1968
[43]

G. J. Burton and I. R. Moorhead, Applied Optics 26, 157 (1987)

1987
[44]

D. J. Field, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 4, 2379 (1987)

1987
[45]

D. L. Ruderman and W. Bialek, Physical Review Letters 73, 814 (1994)

1994
[46]

Wiener, Nonlinear Problems in Random Theory(MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1958)

N. Wiener, Nonlinear Problems in Random Theory(MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1958)

1958
[47]

de Ruyter van Steveninck and W

R. de Ruyter van Steveninck and W. Bialek, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 348, 321 (1995)

1995
[48]

Bialek, in Les Houches Summer School Lecture Notes: Theoretical Biological Physics 2023, edited by A.-F

W. Bialek, in Les Houches Summer School Lecture Notes: Theoretical Biological Physics 2023, edited by A.-F. Bit- bol, T. Mora, I. Nemenman, and A. M. Walczak (SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, 2024)

2023
[49]

Hassenstein and W

B. Hassenstein and W. Reichardt, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Natur- forschung B 11, 513 (1956)

1956
[50]

Reichardt and T

W. Reichardt and T. Poggio, Quarterly Reviews of Bio- physics 9, 311 (1976)

1976
[51]

Egelhaaf, A

M. Egelhaaf, A. Borst, and W. Reichardt, JOSA A 6, 1070 (1989)

1989
[52]

de Ruyter van Steveninck, W

R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, W. Bialek, M. Potters, and R. Carlson, in Proceedings of IEEE International Con- ference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 1 (San Antonio, TX, 1994) pp. 302–307

1994
[53]

R. A. Harris, D. C. O’Carroll, and S. B. Laughlin, Neu- ron 28, 595 (2000)

2000
[54]

S. R. Sinha, W. Bialek, and R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, Physical Review Letters 126, 018101 (2021)

2021
[55]

Warzecha and M

A.-K. Warzecha and M. Egelhaaf, Vision Research 40, 2973 (2000)

2000
[56]

A. D. Straw, T. Rainsford, and D. C. O’Carroll, Journal of Vision 8, 32 (2008)

2008
[57]

D. L. Ruderman, Vision research 37, 3385 (1997)

1997
[58]

W. E. Vinje and J. L. Gallant, Journal of Neuroscience 22, 2904 (2002)

2002
[59]

Vasserman, E

G. Vasserman, E. Schneidman, and R. Segev, PLoS ONE 8, e79163 (2013)

2013
[60]

Felsen, J

G. Felsen, J. Touryan, F. Han, and Y. Dan, PLoS Biol- ogy 3, e342 (2005)

2005
[61]

J. E. Cooke, A. J. King, B. D. B. Willmore, and J. W. H. Schnupp, Journal of Neurophysiology 120, 1872 (2018)

2018
[62]

Maravall, R

M. Maravall, R. S. Petersen, A. L. Fairhall, E. Arabzadeh, and M. E. Diamond, PLoS Biology 5, e19 (2007)

2007
[63]

baby hotel

suggests there may be more opportunities to observe these effects. Of all the ways in which the neural response to veloc- ity could vary, we find that adaptation is described very well by variations in a space of just two dimensions. Sim- ilar results have been obtained in the...
[64]

K. M. Tye, E. K. Miller, F. H. Taschbach, M. K. Benna, M. Rigotti, and S. Fusi, Neuron 112, P2289 (2024)

2024
[65]

J. K. Liu and T. Gollisch, PLOS Computational Biology 11, e1004425 (2015)

2015
[66]

de Ruyter van Steveninck and W

R. de Ruyter van Steveninck and W. Bialek, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 234, 379–414 (1988)

1988
[67]

Bialek and A

W. Bialek and A. Zee, Journal of Statistical Physics 59, 103 (1990)

1990
[68]

Bialek, F

W. Bialek, F. Rieke, R. R. de Ruyter van Steven inck, and D. Warland, Science 252, 1854 (1991)

1991
[69]

Beersma, D

D. Beersma, D. Stavenga, and J. Kuiper, Journal of Comparative Physiology 119, 207 (1977)

1977
[70]

Schwemer, Biophysics of Structure and Mechanism 9, 287 (1983)

J. Schwemer, Biophysics of Structure and Mechanism 9, 287 (1983)

1983
[71]

Schwemer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 154, 535 (1984)

J. Schwemer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 154, 535 (1984)

1984
[72]

Zhou, The Dynamics of Adaptation in the Fly Early Visual System, Ph.D

L. Zhou, The Dynamics of Adaptation in the Fly Early Visual System, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloom- ington, IN (2014)

2014
[73]

C. J. Edelson, P. Smith, S. Setayeshgar, W. Bialek, and R. R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, (2024), arXiv:2412:21081 [q–bio.NC]

2024
[74]

J. C. Lagarias, J. A. Reeds, M. H. Wright, and P. E. Wright, SIAM Journal on Optimization 9, 112 (1998)

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. E. Lenski, PLoS Genetics 13, e1006668 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

S. M. Block, J. E. Segall, and H. C. Berg, Journal of Bacteriology 154, 312 (1983)

work page 1983

[3] [3]

E. D. Adrian, The Basis of Sensation: The Action of the Sense Organs (W. W. Norton, New York, 1928)

work page 1928

[4] [4]

B. Wark, B. N. Lundstrom, and A. Fairhall, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 17, 423 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

A. I. Weber, K. Krishnamurthy, and A. L. Fairhall, An- nual Review of Vision Science 5, 427 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

H. B. Barlow, in National Physical Laboratory Sympo- sium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, Volume 2 (HM Stationery Office, London, 1959) pp. 537–574

work page 1959

[7] [7]

H. B. Barlow, in Sensory Communication, edited by W. A. Rosenblith (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961) pp. 217–233

work page 1961

[8] [8]

S. B. Laughlin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung 36c, 910 (1981)

work page 1981