ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2023
Comparison of a Free-Field and a Closed-Field Sound Source Identification Paradigms in Assessing Spatial Acuity in Adults With Normal Hearing Sensitivity.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Binaural Processing Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Above, Below, and Beyond: Distinct Vertical‑Plane Localization Profiles in Normal Hearing Listeners.Journal of otology · 2026Article
- Minimum Audible Angle and the Acoustic Change Complex Elicited by Azimuthal Shifts in Low-Frequency Sounds: Effects of Age.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTraditional sound field localization setups in a free-field environment closely represent real-world situations. However, they are costly and sophisticated, and it is difficult to replicate similar setups in every clinic. Hence, a cost-effective, portable, and less sophisticated virtual setup will be more feasible for assessing spatial acuity in the clinical setting. The virtual auditory space identification (VASI) test was developed to assess spatial acuity using virtual sources in a closed field. The present study compares the legitimacy of these two methods. SUBJECTS AND
methodsFifty-five individuals with normal hearing (mean age±SD: 21± 3.26 years) underwent spatial acuity assessment using two paradigms: 1) the sound field paradigm (localization test) and 2) the virtual paradigm (VASI test). Location-specific and overall accuracy scores and error rates were calculated using confusion matrices for each participant in both paradigms.
resultsThe results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that the locationspecific and overall accuracy scores for both paradigms were not significantly different. Further, both paradigms did not yield significantly different localization error rates like right and left intra-hemifield errors, inter-hemifield errors, and front-back errors. Spearman's correlation analysis showed that all the measures of the two paradigms had mild to moderate correlation.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate that both VASI and the sound field paradigm localization test performed equally well in assessing spatial acuity.
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.