ArticleTrends in hearing
Auditory Spatial Bisection of Blind and Normally Sighted Individuals in Free Field and Virtual Acoustics.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sound localization is an important ability in everyday life. This study investigates the influence of vision and presentation mode on auditory spatial bisection performance. Subjects were asked to identify the smaller perceived distance between three consecutive stimuli that were either presented via loudspeakers (free field) or via headphones after convolution with generic head-related impulse responses (binaural reproduction). Thirteen azimuthal sound incidence angles on a circular arc segment of ±24° at a radius of 3 m were included in three regions of space (front, rear, and laterally left). Twenty normally sighted (measured both sighted and blindfolded) and eight blind persons participated. Results showed no significant differences with respect to visual condition, but strong effects of sound direction and presentation mode. Psychometric functions were steepest in frontal space and indicated median spatial bisection thresholds of 11°-14°. Thresholds increased significantly in rear (11°-17°) and laterally left (20°-28°) space in free field. Individual pinna and torso cues, as available only in free field presentation, improved the performance of all participants compared to binaural reproduction. Especially in rear space, auditory spatial bisection thresholds were three to four times higher (i.e., poorer) using binaural reproduction than in free field. The results underline the importance of individual auditory spatial cues for spatial bisection, irrespective of access to vision, which indicates that vision may not be strictly necessary to calibrate allocentric spatial hearing.
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.