ArticlePLoS computational biology2016
Dynamic Reweighting of Auditory Modulation Filters.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- FastACI: a toolbox for investigating auditory perception using reverse correlation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A comparative study of eight human auditory models of monaural processing.Acta acustica. European Acoustics Association · 2022Article
- Optimal templates for signal extraction by noisy ideal detectors and human observers.Journal of computational neuroscience · 2021Article
- Cascaded Tuning to Amplitude Modulation for Natural Sound Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- The empirical characteristics of human pattern vision defy theoretically-driven expectations.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Effect of Context on the Contribution of Individual Harmonics to Residue Pitch.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2017Article
- Mechanisms of Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection for Normal- and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sound waveforms convey information largely via amplitude modulations (AM). A large body of experimental evidence has provided support for a modulation (bandpass) filterbank. Details of this model have varied over time partly reflecting different experimental conditions and diverse datasets from distinct task strategies, contributing uncertainty to the bandwidth measurements and leaving important issues unresolved. We adopt here a solely data-driven measurement approach in which we first demonstrate how different models can be subsumed within a common 'cascade' framework, and then proceed to characterize the cascade via system identification analysis using a single stimulus/task specification and hence stable task rules largely unconstrained by any model or parameters. Observers were required to detect a brief change in level superimposed onto random level changes that served as AM noise; the relationship between trial-by-trial noisy fluctuations and corresponding human responses enables targeted identification of distinct cascade elements. The resulting measurements exhibit a dynamic complex picture in which human perception of auditory modulations appears adaptive in nature, evolving from an initial lowpass to bandpass modes (with broad tuning, Q∼1) following repeated stimulus exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.