| Title |
Discrete and continuous mechanisms of temporal selection in rapid visual streams
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41467-017-02079-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sébastien Marti, Stanislas Dehaene |
| Abstract |
Humans can reliably detect a target picture even when tens of images are flashed every second. Here we use magnetoencephalography to dissect the neural mechanisms underlying the dynamics of temporal selection during a rapid serial visual presentation task. Multivariate decoding algorithms allow us to track the overlapping brain responses induced by each image in a rapid visual stream. The results show that temporal selection involves a sequence of gradual followed by all-or-none stages: (i) all images first undergo the same parallel processing pipeline; (ii) starting around 150 ms, responses to multiple images surrounding the target are continuously amplified in ventral visual areas; (iii) only the images that are subsequently reported elicit late all-or-none activations in visual and parietal areas around 350 ms. Thus, multiple images can cohabit in the brain and undergo efficient parallel processing, but temporal selection also isolates a single one for amplification and report. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 15% |
| France | 4 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 6% |
| Japan | 3 | 5% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 32 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 57% |
| Scientists | 23 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 122 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 21% |
| Researcher | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 36 | 30% |
| Psychology | 34 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 17 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,091,833
of 25,364,653 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#17,328
of 56,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,573
of 453,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#491
of 1,432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 56,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.8. 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 453,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,432 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 65% of its contemporaries.