↓ Skip to main content

Learning what to expect (in visual perception)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
362 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
Learning what to expect (in visual perception)
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peggy Seriès, Aaron R. Seitz

Abstract

Expectations are known to greatly affect our experience of the world. A growing theory in computational neuroscience is that perception can be successfully described using Bayesian inference models and that the brain is "Bayes-optimal" under some constraints. In this context, expectations are particularly interesting, because they can be viewed as prior beliefs in the statistical inference process. A number of questions remain unsolved, however, for example: How fast do priors change over time? Are there limits in the complexity of the priors that can be learned? How do an individual's priors compare to the true scene statistics? Can we unlearn priors that are thought to correspond to natural scene statistics? Where and what are the neural substrate of priors? Focusing on the perception of visual motion, we here review recent studies from our laboratories and others addressing these issues. We discuss how these data on motion perception fit within the broader literature on perceptual Bayesian priors, perceptual expectations, and statistical and perceptual learning and review the possible neural basis of priors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 341 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 27%
Researcher 67 19%
Student > Master 43 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 59 16%
Unknown 51 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 125 35%
Neuroscience 57 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 10%
Computer Science 15 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Other 42 12%
Unknown 72 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 August 2019.
All research outputs
#13,394,135
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,062
of 7,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,300
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#552
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 280,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.