ArticleTrends in hearing
Factors Influencing Stream Segregation Based on Interaural Phase Difference Cues.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatially dynamic binaural cues have a larger influence on auditory stream segregation than static cues.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interaural time differences are often considered a weak cue for stream segregation. We investigated this claim with headphone-presented pure tones differing in a related form of interaural configuration-interaural phase differences (ΔIPD)-or/and in frequency (ΔF). In experiment 1, sequences comprised 5 × ABA- repetitions (A and B = 80-ms tones, "-" = 160-ms silence), and listeners reported whether integration or segregation was heard. Envelope shape was varied but remained constant across all tones within a trial. Envelopes were either quasi-trapezoidal or had a fast attack and slow release (FA-SR) or vice versa (SA-FR). The FA-SR envelope caused more segregation than SA-FR in a task where only ΔIPD cues were present, but not in a corresponding ΔF-only task. In experiment 2, interstimulus interval (ISI) was varied (0-60 ms) between FA-SR tones. ΔF-based segregation decreased with increasing ISI, whereas ΔIPD-based segregation increased. This suggests that binaural temporal integration may limit segregation at short ISIs. In another task, ΔF and ΔIPD cues were presented alone or in combination. Here, ΔIPD-based segregation was greatly reduced, suggesting ΔIPD-based segregation is highly sensitive to experimental context. Experiments 1-2 demonstrate that ΔIPD can promote segregation in optimized stimuli/tasks. Experiment 3 employed a task requiring integration for good performance. Listeners detected a delay on the final four B tones of an 8 × ABA- sequence. Although performance worsened with increasing ΔF, increasing ΔIPD had only a marginal impact. This suggests that, even in stimuli optimized for ΔIPD-based segregation, listeners remained mostly able to disregard ΔIPD when segregation was detrimental to performance.
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.