Trial reportScientific reports2018
Different audio spatial metric representation around the body.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Back and front peripersonal space: behavioural and EMG evidence of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Auditory localization: a comprehensive practical review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Backward spatial perception can be augmented through a novel visual-to-auditory sensory substitution algorithm.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparison of auditory spatial bisection and minimum audible angle in front, lateral, and back space.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Auditory Spatial Bisection of Blind and Normally Sighted Individuals in Free Field and Virtual Acoustics.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vision seems to have a pivotal role in developing spatial cognition. A recent approach, based on sensory calibration, has highlighted the role of vision in calibrating hearing in spatial tasks. It was shown that blind individuals have specific impairments during audio spatial bisection tasks. Vision is available only in the frontal space, leading to a "natural" blindness in the back. If vision is important for audio space calibration, then the auditory frontal space should be better represented than the back auditory space. In this study, we investigated this point by comparing frontal and back audio spatial metric representations. We measured precision in the spatial bisection task, for which vision seems to be fundamental to calibrate audition, in twenty-three sighted subjects. Two control tasks, a minimum audible angle and a temporal bisection were employed in order to evaluate auditory precision in the different regions considered. While no differences were observed between frontal and back space in the minimum audible angle (MAA) and temporal bisection task, a significant difference was found in the spatial bisection task, where subjects performed better in the frontal space. Our results are in agreement with the idea that vision is important in developing auditory spatial metric representation in sighted individuals.
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.