↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing the Impact of Category Uncertainty on Human Auditory Categorization Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Characterizing the Impact of Category Uncertainty on Human Auditory Categorization Behavior
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003715
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam M. Gifford, Yale E. Cohen, Alan A. Stocker

Abstract

Categorization is an important cognitive process. However, the correct categorization of a stimulus is often challenging because categories can have overlapping boundaries. Whereas perceptual categorization has been extensively studied in vision, the analogous phenomenon in audition has yet to be systematically explored. Here, we test whether and how human subjects learn to use category distributions and prior probabilities, as well as whether subjects employ an optimal decision strategy when making auditory-category decisions. We asked subjects to classify the frequency of a tone burst into one of two overlapping, uniform categories according to the perceived tone frequency. We systematically varied the prior probability of presenting a tone burst with a frequency originating from one versus the other category. Most subjects learned these changes in prior probabilities early in testing and used this information to influence categorization. We also measured each subject's frequency-discrimination thresholds (i.e., their sensory uncertainty levels). We tested each subject's average behavior against variations of a Bayesian model that either led to optimal or sub-optimal decision behavior (i.e. probability matching). In both predicting and fitting each subject's average behavior, we found that probability matching provided a better account of human decision behavior. The model fits confirmed that subjects were able to learn category prior probabilities and approximate forms of the category distributions. Finally, we systematically explored the potential ways that additional noise sources could influence categorization behavior. We found that an optimal decision strategy can produce probability-matching behavior if it utilized non-stationary category distributions and prior probabilities formed over a short stimulus history. Our work extends previous findings into the auditory domain and reformulates the issue of categorization in a manner that can help to interpret the results of previous research within a generative framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 13%
Japan 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 35%
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 31%
Neuroscience 11 20%
Engineering 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 4 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 22 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,480
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,630
of 227,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#124
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 227,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.