ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Dynamic spectral cues do not affect human sound localization during small head movements.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ideal-observer model of human sound localization of sources with unknown spectrum.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bayesian active sound localisation: To what extent do humans perform like an ideal-observer?PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Head rotations follow those of a truncated Fick gimbal during an auditory-guided visual search task.Journal of neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Sound localization in noisy contexts: performance, metacognitive evaluations and head movements.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Head movement and its relation to hearing.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural listening involves a constant deployment of small head movement. Spatial listening is facilitated by head movements, especially when resolving front-back confusions, an otherwise common issue during sound localization under head-still conditions. The present study investigated which acoustic cues are utilized by human listeners to localize sounds using small head movements (below ±10° around the center). Seven normal-hearing subjects participated in a sound localization experiment in a virtual reality environment. Four acoustic cue stimulus conditions were presented (full spectrum, flattened spectrum, frozen spectrum, free-field) under three movement conditions (no movement, head rotations over the yaw axis and over the pitch axis). Localization performance was assessed using three metrics: lateral and polar precision error and front-back confusion rate. Analysis through mixed-effects models showed that even small yaw rotations provide a remarkable decrease in front-back confusion rate, whereas pitch rotations did not show much of an effect. Furthermore, MSS cues improved localization performance even in the presence of dITD cues. However, performance was similar between stimuli with and without dMSS cues. This indicates that human listeners utilize the MSS cues before the head moves, but do not rely on dMSS cues to localize sounds when utilizing small head movements.
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.