Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31396064›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019

Evidence for the Rhythmic Perceptual Sampling of Auditory Scenes.

Christoph Kayser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Generative models, linguistic communication and active inference.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christoph KayserDepartment for Cognitive Neuroscience & Cognitive Interaction Technology, Center of Excellence, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Converging results suggest that perception is controlled by rhythmic processes in the brain. In the auditory domain, neuroimaging studies show that the perception of sounds is shaped by rhythmic activity prior to the stimulus, and electrophysiological recordings have linked delta and theta band activity to the functioning of individual neurons. These results have promoted theories of rhythmic modes of listening and generally suggest that the perceptually relevant encoding of acoustic information is structured by rhythmic processes along auditory pathways. A prediction from this perspective-which so far has not been tested-is that such rhythmic processes also shape how acoustic information is combined over time to judge extended soundscapes. The present study was designed to directly test this prediction. Human participants judged the overall change in perceived frequency content in temporally extended (1.2-1.8 s) soundscapes, while the perceptual use of the available sensory evidence was quantified using psychophysical reverse correlation. Model-based analysis of individual participant's perceptual weights revealed a rich temporal structure, including linear trends, a U-shaped profile tied to the overall stimulus duration, and importantly, rhythmic components at the time scale of 1-2 Hz. The collective evidence found here across four versions of the experiment supports the notion that rhythmic processes operating on the delta time scale structure how perception samples temporally extended acoustic scenes.

Indexed as

auditory perceptiondelta bandhearingperceptual weightsreverse correlationrhythmic perceptiontheta band

Identifiers

PMID31396064
PMCPMC6663999
OpenAlexW2960696074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.