ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Active listening modulates the spatial hearing experience: a multicentric study.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. 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.
- Natural head orientation and spatial hearing with symmetric frontal maskers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although flexible and portable virtual reality technologies have simplified measuring participants' perception of acoustic space, their clinical adoption remains limited, often lacking ecological fidelity. In clinical practice, participants are typically instructed to remain still when testing sound localization, whereas head movements are crucial in daily life. Additionally, assessing spatial hearing extends beyond measuring accuracy to include meta-cognitive evaluations like perceived effort and confidence, which are rarely adopted. Our study hypothesized that allowing head movement during sound localization, compared to a static head condition, would reduce perceived listening effort and enhance confidence in normal hearing participants. Conducted across three audiology and otology hospital services in Northern Italy, the study involved personnel inexperienced with our VR equipment. This also tested the feasibility and usability of our VR approach in clinical settings. Results showed that head movements reduced subjective effort but did not significantly affect perceived confidence. However, during the active condition, participants reporting higher confidence exhibited less head movement and explored the space less. Similarly, those with less head movement reported lower listening effort. These findings underscore the importance of allowing natural posture to capture the full extent of spatial hearing capabilities and the value of including metacognitive evaluations in assessing performance. Our use of affordable, off-the-shelf VR equipment effectively measured spatial hearing in clinical settings, providing a flexible alternative to current static systems. This approach highlights the potential for more dynamic and comprehensive assessments in clinical audiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39636399What 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.