Generally a good article about this well-constrained definitional topic
However I have a few comments that might help context, clarity and links elsewhere..
- First, I don't think there is much chance of this getting confused with the usage of the quantum theorists - that was a bit of a non-sequiter for me!
- In order to distinguish more clearly the term 'receptive field' as used here, and as used by the 'experimentalists', can I suggest the wording:
"The neuron also has a set of neurons from which it receives its inputs. Within the framework of connectivity described here, that input set is called the receptive field of the neuron. Note that this is not a region of perceptual space as commonly employed in experimental neuroscience."
Then the proviso is introduced at the same time as the usage of RF, and no need for last sentence.
- Does having the same term for two different items in our ontology matter? Is it always obvious whether its the connectivity or phenomenological version?
- Is there any mileage in allowing projective field to incorporate within-layer connections? has anyone ever used it like that?