ArticleTrends in hearing
Comparing the Auditory Distance and Externalization of Virtual Sound Sources Simulated Using Nonindividualized Stimuli.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Enhancing Externalization of Frontal Virtual Sound Sources in Binaural Synthesis via Level and Reflection Adjustment of Non-individualized BRIRs.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Effect of Head Movements on Front-Back Discrimination and Sound Externalization With Hearing Aids.Trends in hearingArticle
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.