Abstract
Like any physical information processing device, the human brain is inherently noisy: If a participant is presented with the same sensory stimulus multiple times and is asked to press one of two buttons in response to some property of the stimulus, the response may vary even though the stimulus did not. This response variability can be used to estimate the amount of so-called internal noise—that is, noise that is not present in the stimulus (such as random dynamic dots on the screen) but in the participant’s brain. How large is this internally generated noise? We obtained >400 independent estimates on 40 participants for a range of protocols (yes/no, two-, four-, and eight-alternative forced choice), modalities (auditory and visual), attentional state, adaptation state, stimulus types (static, moving, stereoscopic), and other parameters (timing, size, contrast). Our final estimate at ∼1.3 (units of external noise standard deviation) is generally somewhat larger than that previously inferred from smaller and less varied data sets. We discuss the impact of high levels of internal noise on a number of experimental and computational efforts aimed at understanding and characterizing human sensory processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahumada, A. J. (2002). Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. Journal of Vision, 2(1, Art. 8), 121–131.
Barlow, H. B. (1956). Retinal noise and absolute threshold. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 46, 634–639.
Barlow, H. B. (1978). The efficiency of detecting changes of density in random dot patterns. Vision Research, 18, 637–650.
Barlow, H. B. (1980). The absolute efficiency of perceptual decisions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 290, 71–82.
Barlow, H. B., & Tripathy, S. P. (1997). Correspondence noise and signal pooling in the detection of coherent visual motion. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 7954–7966.
Burgess, A. E., & Colborne, B. (1988). Visual signal detection: IV. Observer inconsistency. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 5, 617–627.
Cohn, T. E., & Lasley, D. J. (1986). Visual sensitivity. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 495–521.
De Valois, R. L., & De Valois, K. K. (1990). Spatial vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faisal, A. A., Selen, L. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2008). Noise in the nervous system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 292–303.
Gold, J., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (1999). Signal but not noise changes with perceptual learning. Nature, 402, 176–178.
Gold, J., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2004). Characterizing perceptual learning with external noise. Cognitive Science, 28, 167–207.
Green, D. M. (1964). Consistency of auditory detection judgments. Psychological Review, 71, 392–407.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory andpsychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Hirsh, I. J., & Watson, C. S. (1996). Auditory psychophysics and perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 461–484.
Klein, S. A., & Levi, D. M. (2009). Stochastic model for detection of signals in noise. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 26, B110-B126.
Knoblauch, K., & Maloney, L. T. (2008). Estimating classification images with generalized linear and additive models. Journal of Vision, 8(16, Art. 10), 1–19.
Levi, D. M., Klein, S. A., & Chen, I. (2008). What limits performance in the amblyopic visual system: Seeing signals in noise with an amblyopic brain. Journal of Vision, 8(4, Art. 1), 1–23.
Li, R. W., Klein, S. A., & Levi, D. M. (2006). The receptive field and internal noise for position acuity change with feature separation. Journal of Vision, 6(4, Art. 2), 311–321.
Murray, R. F., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2005). Classification images predict absolute efficiency. Journal of Vision, 5(2, Art. 5), 139–149.
Neri, P. (2004a. Attentional effects on sensory tuning for single-feature detection and double-feature conjunction. Vision Research, 44, 3053–3064.
Neri, P. (2004b). Estimation of nonlinear psychophysical kernels. Journal of Vision, 4(2, Art. 2), 82–91.
Neri, P. (2009). Nonlinear characterization of a simple process in human vision. Journal of Vision, 9(12, Art. 1), 1–29.
Neri, P. (2010). Visual detection under uncertainty operates via an early static, not late dynamic, nonlinearity. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 4, 151.
Neri, P., & Levi, D. M. (2006). Receptive versus perceptive fields from the reverse-correlation viewpoint. Vision Research, 46, 2465–2474.
Neri, P., & Levi, D. M. (2008a). Evidence for joint encoding of motion and disparity in human visual perception. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 3117–3133.
Neri, P., & Levi, D. M. (2008b). Temporal dynamics of directional selectivity in human vision. Journal of Vision, 8(1, Art. 22), 1–11.
Neri, P., & Levi, D. M. (2009). Surround motion silences signals from same-direction motion. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102, 2594–2602.
Pelli, D. G. (1985). Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2, 1508–1532.
Pelli, D. G. (1990). The quantum efficiency of vision. In C. Blakemore (Ed.), Vision: Coding and efficiency (pp. 3–24). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tjan, B. S., Braje, W. L., Legge, G. E., & Kersten, D. (1995). Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise. Vision Research, 35, 3053–3069.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supported by the Royal Society (University Research Fellowship) and the Medical Research Council (New Investigator Research Grant).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neri, P. How inherently noisy is human sensory processing?. Psychon Bull Rev 17, 802–808 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.802
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.802