Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34149541›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Investigation of an MAA Test With Virtual Sound Synthesis.

Ruijie Meng, Jingpeng Xiang, Jinqiu Sang, Chengshi Zheng, Xiaodong Li, Stefan Bleeck, Juanjuan Cai, Jie Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Ruijie MengKey Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jingpeng XiangKey Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jinqiu SangKey Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Chengshi ZhengKey Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaodong LiKey Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Stefan BleeckInstitute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Juanjuan CaiState Key Laboratory of Media Convergence and Communication, Communication University of China, Beijing, China.
Jie WangSchool of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to localize a sound source is very important in our daily life, specifically to analyze auditory scenes in complex acoustic environments. The concept of minimum audible angle (MAA), which is defined as the smallest detectable difference between the incident directions of two sound sources, has been widely used in the research fields of auditory perception to measure localization ability. Measuring MAAs usually involves a reference sound source and either a large number of loudspeakers or a movable sound source in order to reproduce sound sources at a large number of predefined incident directions. However, existing MAA test systems are often cumbersome because they require a large number of loudspeakers or a mechanical rail slide and thus are expensive and inconvenient to use. This study investigates a novel MAA test method using virtual sound source synthesis and avoiding the problems with traditional methods. We compare the perceptual localization acuity of sound sources in two experimental designs: using the virtual presentation and real sound sources. The virtual sound source is reproduced through a pair of loudspeakers weighted by vector-based amplitude panning (VBAP). Results show that the average measured MAA at 0° azimuth is 1.1° and the average measured MAA at 90° azimuth is 3.1° in a virtual acoustic system, meanwhile the average measured MAA at 0° azimuth is about 1.2° and the average measured MAA at 90° azimuth is 3.3° when using the real sound sources. The measurements of the two methods have no significant difference. We conclude that the proposed MAA test system is a suitable alternative to more complicated and expensive setups.

Indexed as

localization acuitythe frontal MAAthe lateral MAAVBAPvirtual sound synthesis

Identifiers

PMID34149541
PMCPMC8206507

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.