ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Auditory motion as a cue for source segregation and selection in a "cocktail party" listening environment.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural head orientation and spatial hearing with symmetric frontal maskers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Electromyographic correlates of effortful listening in the vestigial auriculomotor system.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Head and Eye Movements Reveal Compensatory Strategies for Acute Binaural Deficits During Sound Localization.Trends in hearingArticle
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
Abstract
Source motion was examined as a cue for segregating concurrent speech or noise sources. In two different headphone-based tasks-motion detection (MD) and speech-on-speech masking (SI)-one source among three was designated as the target only by imposing sinusoidal variation in azimuth during the stimulus presentation. For MD, the lstener was asked which of the three concurrent sources was in motion during the trial. For SI, the listener was asked to report the words spoken by the moving speech source. MD performance improved as the amplitude of the sinusoidal motion (i.e., displacement in azimuth) increased over the range of values tested (±5° to ±30°) for both modulated noise and speech targets, with better performance found for speech. SI performance also improved as the amplitude of target motion increased. Furthermore, SI performance improved as word position progressed throughout the sentence. Performance on the MD task was correlated with performance on SI task across individual subjects. For the SI conditions tested here, these findings are consistent with the proposition that listeners first detect the moving target source, then focus attention on the target location as the target sentence unfolds.
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.