↓ Skip to main content

Perception and self-organized instability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
287 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
Perception and self-organized instability
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2012.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl Friston, Michael Breakspear, Gustavo Deco

Abstract

This paper considers state-dependent dynamics that mediate perception in the brain. In particular, it considers the formal basis of self-organized instabilities that enable perceptual transitions during Bayes-optimal perception. The basic phenomena we consider are perceptual transitions that lead to conscious ignition (Dehaene and Changeux, 2011) and how they depend on dynamical instabilities that underlie chaotic itinerancy (Breakspear, 2001; Tsuda, 2001) and self-organized criticality (Beggs and Plenz, 2003; Plenz and Thiagarajan, 2007; Shew et al., 2011). Our approach is based on a dynamical formulation of perception as approximate Bayesian inference, in terms of variational free energy minimization. This formulation suggests that perception has an inherent tendency to induce dynamical instabilities (critical slowing) that enable the brain to respond sensitively to sensory perturbations. We briefly review the dynamics of perception, in terms of generalized Bayesian filtering and free energy minimization, present a formal conjecture about self-organized instability and then test this conjecture, using neuronal (numerical) simulations of perceptual categorization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Germany 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 258 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 28%
Researcher 58 20%
Student > Master 28 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Professor 18 6%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 31 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 59 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 15%
Psychology 42 15%
Computer Science 24 8%
Physics and Astronomy 16 6%
Other 55 19%
Unknown 47 16%
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 05 August 2020.
All research outputs
#14,376,622
of 25,013,816 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#515
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,535
of 255,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#25
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,013,816 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 255,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.