↓ Skip to main content

One hundred ways to process time, frequency, rate and scale in the central auditory system: a pattern-recognition meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
One hundred ways to process time, frequency, rate and scale in the central auditory system: a pattern-recognition meta-analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2015.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edgar Hemery, Jean-Julien Aucouturier

Abstract

The mammalian auditory system extracts features from the acoustic environment based on the responses of spatially distributed sets of neurons in the subcortical and cortical auditory structures. The characteristic responses of these neurons (linearly approximated by their spectro-temporal receptive fields, or STRFs) suggest that auditory representations are formed, as early as in the inferior colliculi, on the basis of a time, frequency, rate (temporal modulations) and scale (spectral modulations) analysis of sound. However, how these four dimensions are integrated and processed in subsequent neural networks remains unclear. In this work, we present a new methodology to generate computational insights into the functional organization of such processes. We first propose a systematic framework to explore more than a hundred different computational strategies proposed in the literature to process the output of a generic STRF model. We then evaluate these strategies on their ability to compute perceptual distances between pairs of environmental sounds. Finally, we conduct a meta-analysis of the dataset of all these algorithms' accuracies to examine whether certain combinations of dimensions and certain ways to treat such dimensions are, on the whole, more computationally effective than others. We present an application of this methodology to a dataset of ten environmental sound categories, in which the analysis reveals that (1) models are most effective when they organize STRF data into frequency groupings-which is consistent with the known tonotopic organization of receptive fields in auditory structures -, and that (2) models that treat STRF data as time series are no more effective than models that rely only on summary statistics along time-which corroborates recent experimental evidence on texture discrimination by summary statistics.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 6%
France 2 4%
Colombia 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 39 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 32%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 17%
Computer Science 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Engineering 6 13%
Arts and Humanities 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,940,687
of 26,522,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#458
of 1,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,881
of 277,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#12
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,522,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 277,615 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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.