↓ Skip to main content

Harmonic Training and the Formation of Pitch Representation in a Neural Network Model of the Auditory Brain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Harmonic Training and the Formation of Pitch Representation in a Neural Network Model of the Auditory Brain
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasir Ahmad, Irina Higgins, Kerry M. M. Walker, Simon M. Stringer

Abstract

Attempting to explain the perceptual qualities of pitch has proven to be, and remains, a difficult problem. The wide range of sounds which elicit pitch and a lack of agreement across neurophysiological studies on how pitch is encoded by the brain have made this attempt more difficult. In describing the potential neural mechanisms by which pitch may be processed, a number of neural networks have been proposed and implemented. However, no unsupervised neural networks with biologically accurate cochlear inputs have yet been demonstrated. This paper proposes a simple system in which pitch representing neurons are produced in a biologically plausible setting. Purely unsupervised regimes of neural network learning are implemented and these prove to be sufficient in identifying the pitch of sounds with a variety of spectral profiles, including sounds with missing fundamental frequencies and iterated rippled noises.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 23 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 27%
Engineering 5 19%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Psychology 3 12%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 2 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,868,299
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#360
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,414
of 300,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#8
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 300,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.