ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Psychophysical evidence for auditory motion parallax.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuronal Representation of Auditory Distance Percepts vs. Cues in Human Auditory Cortex.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Natural head orientation and spatial hearing with symmetric frontal maskers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Seeing a Three-Dimensional World in Motion: How the Brain Computes Object Motion and Depth During Self-Motion.Annual review of vision science · 2025Review
- Auditory localization: a comprehensive practical review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Benefits of active listening during 3D sound localization.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Naturalistic neuroscience and virtual reality.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Review
- Frequency-dependent integration of auditory and vestibular cues for self-motion perception.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Cortical auditory distance representation based on direct-to-reverberant energy ratio.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- Auditory motion perception emerges from successive sound localizations integrated over time.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Auditory motion parallax.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Article
- The Effect of Head Movements on Front-Back Discrimination and Sound Externalization With Hearing Aids.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distance is important: From an ecological perspective, knowledge about the distance to either prey or predator is vital. However, the distance of an unknown sound source is particularly difficult to assess, especially in anechoic environments. In vision, changes in perspective resulting from observer motion produce a reliable, consistent, and unambiguous impression of depth known as motion parallax. Here we demonstrate with formal psychophysics that humans can exploit auditory motion parallax, i.e., the change in the dynamic binaural cues elicited by self-motion, to assess the relative depths of two sound sources. Our data show that sensitivity to relative depth is best when subjects move actively; performance deteriorates when subjects are moved by a motion platform or when the sound sources themselves move. This is true even though the dynamic binaural cues elicited by these three types of motion are identical. Our data demonstrate a perceptual strategy to segregate intermittent sound sources in depth and highlight the tight interaction between self-motion and binaural processing that allows assessment of the spatial layout of complex acoustic scenes.
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.