Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39435499›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Comparing the Auditory Distance and Externalization of Virtual Sound Sources Simulated Using Nonindividualized Stimuli.

Mathieu Lavandier, Lizette Heine, Fabien Perrin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mathieu LavandierENTPE, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, CNRS, LTDS, UMR5513, Vaulx-en-Velin, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2976-4608
Lizette HeineENTPE, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, CNRS, LTDS, UMR5513, Vaulx-en-Velin, France.
Fabien PerrinAudition Cognition and Psychoacoustics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When reproducing sounds over headphones, the simulated source can be externalized (i.e., perceived outside the head) or internalized (i.e., perceived within the head). Is it because it is perceived as more or less distant? To investigate this question, 18 participants evaluated distance and externalization for three types of sound (speech, piano, helicopter) in 27 conditions using nonindividualized stimuli. Distance and externalization ratings were significantly correlated across conditions and listeners, and when averaged across listeners or conditions. However, they were also decoupled in some circumstances: (1) Sound type had different effects on distance and externalization: the helicopter was evaluated as more distant, while speech was judged as less externalized. (2) Distance estimations increased with simulated distances even for stimuli judged as internalized. (3) Diotic reverberation influenced distance but not externalization. Overall, a source was not rated as externalized as soon as and only if its perceived distance exceeded a threshold (e.g., the head radius). These results suggest that distance and externalization are correlated but might not be aspects of a single perceptual continuum. In particular, a virtual source might be judged as both internalized and with a distance. Hence, it could be important to avoid using a scale related to distance when evaluating externalization.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationSound LocalizationSpeech PerceptionAdultAircraftAuditory ThresholdDistance PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleMusicVibrationYoung Adulthearinglocalizationspatial perceptionvirtual acoustics

Identifiers

PMID39435499
PMCPMC11500226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.