ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2022
Effects of Spatial Training Paradigms on Auditory Spatial Refinement in Normal-Hearing Listeners: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Auditory discrimination improvement in young adults by a digital auditory game-based training protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Spatial rehabilitation using virtual auditory space training paradigm in individuals with sensorineural hearing impairment.Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study compared the effectiveness of two spatial training programs using real and virtual sound sources in refining spatial acuity skills in listeners with normal hearing. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted on two groups of 10 participants each; groups I and II underwent spatial training using real and virtual sound sources, respectively. The study was conducted in three phases: pre-training, training, and post-training phases. At the pre- and post-training phases, the spatial acuity of the participants was measured using real sound sources through the localization test, and virtual sound sources through the virtual acoustic space identification (VASI) test. The thresholds of interaural time difference (ITD) and interaural level difference (ILD) were also measured. In the training phase, Group I participants underwent localization training using loudspeakers in free field, while participants in Group II were subjected to virtual acoustic space (VAS) training using virtual sound sources from headphones. Both the training methods consisted of 5-8 sessions (20 min each) of systematically presented stimuli graded according to duration and back attenuation (for real source training) or number of VAS locations (for virtual source training).
resultsResults of independent t-scores comparing the spatial learning scores (pre vs. post-training) for each measure showed differences in performance between the two groups. Group II performed better than Group I on the VASI test, while the Group I out-performed Group II on the ITD. Both groups improved equally on the localization test and ILD.
conclusionsBased on the present findings, we recommend the use of VAS training as it has practical implications due to its cost effectiveness, need for minimal equipment, and end user usefulness.
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.