ArticleExperimental brain research2020
Certain, but incorrect: on the relation between subjective certainty and accuracy in sound localisation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Action toward sound sources enhances auditory spatial confidence: on the metacognitive consequences of reaching to sounds.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Active listening modulates the spatial hearing experience: a multicentric study.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Spatial hearing training in virtual reality with simulated asymmetric hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sound localization in noisy contexts: performance, metacognitive evaluations and head movements.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Instant improvement in monaural spatial hearing abilities through cognitive feedback.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
When asked to identify the position of a sound, listeners can report its perceived location as well as their subjective certainty about this spatial judgement. Yet, research to date focused primarily on measures of perceived location (e.g., accuracy and precision of pointing responses), neglecting instead the phenomenological experience of subjective spatial certainty. The present study aimed to investigate: (1) changes in subjective certainty about sound position induced by listening with one ear plugged (simulated monaural listening), compared to typical binaural listening and (2) the relation between subjective certainty about sound position and localisation accuracy. In two experiments (N = 20 each), participants localised single sounds delivered from one of 60 speakers hidden from view in front space. In each trial, they also provided a subjective rating of their spatial certainty about sound position. No feedback on response was provided. Overall, participants were mostly accurate and certain about sound position in binaural listening, whereas their accuracy and subjective certainty decreased in monaural listening. Interestingly, accuracy and certainty dissociated within single trials during monaural listening: in some trials participants were certain but incorrect, in others they were uncertain but correct. Furthermore, unlike accuracy, subjective certainty rapidly increased as a function of time during the monaural listening block. Finally, subjective certainty changed as a function of perceived location of the sound source. These novel findings reveal that listeners quickly update their subjective confidence on sound position, when they experience an altered listening condition, even in the absence of feedback. Furthermore, they document a dissociation between accuracy and subjective certainty when mapping auditory input to space.
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.