ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Sensitivity to a Break in Interaural Correlation in Frequency-Gliding Noises.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Computational Model for Evaluating Transient Auditory Storage of Acoustic Features in Normal Listeners.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was to investigate whether human listeners are able to detect a binaurally uncorrelated arbitrary-noise fragment embedded in binaurally identical arbitrary-noise markers [a break in correlation, break in interaural correlation (BIAC)] in either frequency-constant (frequency-steady) or frequency-varied (unidirectionally frequency gliding) noise. Ten participants with normal hearing were tested in Experiment 1 for up-gliding, down-gliding, and frequency-steady noises. Twenty-one participants with normal hearing were tested in Experiment 2a for both up-gliding and frequency-steady noises. Another nineteen participants with normal hearing were tested in Experiment 2b for both down-gliding and frequency-steady noises. Listeners were able to detect a BIAC in the frequency-steady noise (center frequency = 400 Hz) and two types of frequency-gliding noises (center frequency: between 100 and 1,600 Hz). The duration threshold for detecting the BIAC in frequency-gliding noises was significantly longer than that in the frequency-steady noise (Experiment 1), and the longest interaural delay at which a duration-fixed BIAC (200 ms) in frequency-gliding noises could be detected was significantly shorter than that in the frequency-steady noise (Experiment 2). Although human listeners can detect a BIAC in frequency-gliding noises, their sensitivity to a BIAC in frequency-gliding noises is much lower than that in frequency-steady noise.
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.