↓ Skip to main content

Perceptual estimation obeys Occam's razor

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Perceptual estimation obeys Occam's razor
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00623
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel J. Gershman, Yael Niv

Abstract

Theoretical models of unsupervised category learning postulate that humans "invent" categories to accommodate new patterns, but tend to group stimuli into a small number of categories. This "Occam's razor" principle is motivated by normative rules of statistical inference. If categories influence perception, then one should find effects of category invention on simple perceptual estimation. In a series of experiments, we tested this prediction by asking participants to estimate the number of colored circles on a computer screen, with the number of circles drawn from a color-specific distribution. When the distributions associated with each color overlapped substantially, participants' estimates were biased toward values intermediate between the two means, indicating that subjects ignored the color of the circles and grouped different-colored stimuli into one perceptual category. These data suggest that humans favor simpler explanations of sensory inputs. In contrast, when the distributions associated with each color overlapped minimally, the bias was reduced (i.e., the estimates for each color were closer to the true means), indicating that sensory evidence for more complex explanations can override the simplicity bias. We present a rational analysis of our task, showing how these qualitative patterns can arise from Bayesian computations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 26%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 24%
Psychology 26 24%
Computer Science 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 24 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,606,077
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,697
of 33,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,520
of 290,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#294
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 290,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 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 69% of its contemporaries.