Literature DB >> 21169572

How inherently noisy is human sensory processing?

Peter Neri1.   

Abstract

Like any physical information processing device, the human brain is inherently noisy: If a participant is presented with the same sensory stimulus multiple times and is asked to press one of two buttons in response to some property of the stimulus, the response may vary even though the stimulus did not. This response variability can be used to estimate the amount of so-called internal noise-that is, noise that is not present in the stimulus (such as random dynamic dots on the screen) but in the participant's brain. How large is this internally generated noise? We obtained >400 independent estimates on 40 participants for a range of protocols (yes/no, two-, four-, and eight-alternative forced choice), modalities (auditory and visual), attentional state, adaptation state, stimulus types (static, moving, stereoscopic), and other parameters (timing, size, contrast). Our final estimate at ~1.3 (units of external noise standard deviation) is generally somewhat larger than that previously inferred from smaller and less varied data sets. We discuss the impact of high levels of internal noise on a number of experimental and computational efforts aimed at understanding and characterizing human sensory processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21169572     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  26 in total

1.  Signal but not noise changes with perceptual learning.

Authors:  J Gold; P J Bennett; A B Sekuler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-11-11       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  CONSISTENCY OF AUDITORY DETECTION JUDGMENTS.

Authors:  D M GREEN
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1964-09       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Temporal dynamics of directional selectivity in human vision.

Authors:  Peter Neri; Dennis Levi
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 4.  Auditory psychophysics and perception.

Authors:  I J Hirsh; C S Watson
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 24.137

5.  Correspondence noise and signal pooling in the detection of coherent visual motion.

Authors:  H Barlow; S P Tripathy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Visual sensitivity.

Authors:  T E Cohn; D J Lasley
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 24.137

7.  The efficiency of detecting changes of density in random dot patterns.

Authors:  H B Barlow
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Estimating classification images with generalized linear and additive models.

Authors:  Kenneth Knoblauch; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise.

Authors:  B S Tjan; W L Braje; G E Legge; D Kersten
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 10.  Receptive versus perceptive fields from the reverse-correlation viewpoint.

Authors:  Peter Neri; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  19 in total

1.  The empirical characteristics of human pattern vision defy theoretically-driven expectations.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.475

2.  Classification images reveal decision variables and strategies in forced choice tasks.

Authors:  Lisa M Pritchett; Richard F Murray
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Noise in brain activity engenders perception and influences discrimination sensitivity.

Authors:  Fosco Bernasconi; Marzia De Lucia; Athina Tzovara; Aurelie L Manuel; Micah M Murray; Lucas Spierer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Attentional control of sensory tuning in human visual perception.

Authors:  Aspasia E Paltoglou; Peter Neri
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  How Noisy is Lexical Decision?

Authors:  Kevin Diependaele; Marc Brysbaert; Peter Neri
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-09-24

6.  Visual detection under uncertainty operates via an early static, not late dynamic, non-linearity.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.380

7.  Global properties of natural scenes shape local properties of human edge detectors.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-08-05

8.  Subliminal semantic priming in speech.

Authors:  Jérôme Daltrozzo; Carine Signoret; Barbara Tillmann; Fabien Perrin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Posterior Probability Matching and Human Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Richard F Murray; Khushbu Patel; Alan Yee
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Human decision making based on variations in internal noise: an EEG study.

Authors:  Sygal Amitay; Jeanne Guiraud; Ediz Sohoglu; Oliver Zobay; Barrie A Edmonds; Yu-Xuan Zhang; David R Moore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.