↓ Skip to main content

Recognizing Sequences of Sequences

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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
Recognizing Sequences of Sequences
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan J. Kiebel, Katharina von Kriegstein, Jean Daunizeau, Karl J. Friston

Abstract

The brain's decoding of fast sensory streams is currently impossible to emulate, even approximately, with artificial agents. For example, robust speech recognition is relatively easy for humans but exceptionally difficult for artificial speech recognition systems. In this paper, we propose that recognition can be simplified with an internal model of how sensory input is generated, when formulated in a Bayesian framework. We show that a plausible candidate for an internal or generative model is a hierarchy of 'stable heteroclinic channels'. This model describes continuous dynamics in the environment as a hierarchy of sequences, where slower sequences cause faster sequences. Under this model, online recognition corresponds to the dynamic decoding of causal sequences, giving a representation of the environment with predictive power on several timescales. We illustrate the ensuing decoding or recognition scheme using synthetic sequences of syllables, where syllables are sequences of phonemes and phonemes are sequences of sound-wave modulations. By presenting anomalous stimuli, we find that the resulting recognition dynamics disclose inference at multiple time scales and are reminiscent of neuronal dynamics seen in the real brain.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 8 3%
United Kingdom 5 2%
France 5 2%
United States 5 2%
Spain 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 245 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 27%
Researcher 66 23%
Professor 30 10%
Student > Master 23 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 7%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 25 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 21%
Neuroscience 52 18%
Computer Science 44 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 15%
Physics and Astronomy 13 5%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 29 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,346
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,387
of 123,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#35
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 123,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.