ArticleExperimental brain research2022
Can visual capture of sound separate auditory streams?
Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Best Distance Perception in Virtual Audiovisual Environment.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In noisy contexts, sound discrimination improves when the auditory sources are separated in space. This phenomenon, named Spatial Release from Masking (SRM), arises from the interaction between the auditory information reaching the ear and spatial attention resources. To examine the relative contribution of these two factors, we exploited an audio-visual illusion in a hearing-in-noise task to create conditions in which the initial stimulation to the ears is held constant, while the perceived separation between speech and masker is changed illusorily (visual capture of sound). In two experiments, we asked participants to identify a string of five digits pronounced by a female voice, embedded in either energetic (Experiment 1) or informational (Experiment 2) noise, before reporting the perceived location of the heard digits. Critically, the distance between target digits and masking noise was manipulated both physically (from 22.5 to 75.0 degrees) and illusorily, by pairing target sounds with visual stimuli either at same (audio-visual congruent) or different positions (15 degrees offset, leftward or rightward: audio-visual incongruent). The proportion of correctly reported digits increased with the physical separation between the target and masker, as expected from SRM. However, despite effective visual capture of sounds, performance was not modulated by illusory changes of target sound position. Our results are compatible with a limited role of central factors in the SRM phenomenon, at least in our experimental setting. Moreover, they add to the controversial literature on the limited effects of audio-visual capture in auditory stream separation.
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.