Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26590050›Full record

ReviewAttention, perception & psychophysics2016

Auditory distance perception in humans: a review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss.

Andrew J Kolarik, Brian C J Moore, Pavel Zahorik, Silvia Cirstea, Shahina Pardhan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Do running frogs (Kassina fusca) exhibit hyperextended variation in the sound pressure level of advertisement calls?Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Intensity-dependent topographical expansion of sensory representations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Neuronal Representation of Auditory Distance Percepts vs. Cues in Human Auditory Cortex.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Article
  11. Assessing the Role of Vocal Plasticity in Sociospatial Coordination.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Andrew J KolarikCentre for the Study of the Senses, Institute of Philosophy, University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HU, UK. andrewjoseph.kolarik@sas.ac.uk.
Brian C J MooreDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
Pavel ZahorikDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 49292, USA.
Silvia CirsteaVision and Eye Research Unit (VERU), Postgraduate Medical Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Eastings 204, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK.
Shahina PardhanVision and Eye Research Unit (VERU), Postgraduate Medical Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Eastings 204, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Auditory distance perception plays a major role in spatial awareness, enabling location of objects and avoidance of obstacles in the environment. However, it remains under-researched relative to studies of the directional aspect of sound localization. This review focuses on the following four aspects of auditory distance perception: cue processing, development, consequences of visual and auditory loss, and neurological bases. The several auditory distance cues vary in their effective ranges in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. The primary cues are sound level, reverberation, and frequency. Nonperceptual factors, including the importance of the auditory event to the listener, also can affect perceived distance. Basic internal representations of auditory distance emerge at approximately 6 months of age in humans. Although visual information plays an important role in calibrating auditory space, sensorimotor contingencies can be used for calibration when vision is unavailable. Blind individuals often manifest supranormal abilities to judge relative distance but show a deficit in absolute distance judgments. Following hearing loss, the use of auditory level as a distance cue remains robust, while the reverberation cue becomes less effective. Previous studies have not found evidence that hearing-aid processing affects perceived auditory distance. Studies investigating the brain areas involved in processing different acoustic distance cues are described. Finally, suggestions are given for further research on auditory distance perception, including broader investigation of how background noise and multiple sound sources affect perceived auditory distance for those with sensory loss.

Indexed as

CuesAcoustic StimulationAuditory Diseases, CentralAuditory PathwaysAuditory PerceptionBlindnessDistance PerceptionHearing AidsHearing LossHumansBlindnessCompensatory plasticityDistance perceptionHearing lossSound level

Identifiers

PMID26590050
PMCPMC4744263

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.