ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Front-back asymmetries in endogenous auditory spatial attention.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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.
- Auditory selective attention in depth: Investigating directional dependency across front, lateral, and rear spaces.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on endogenous auditory spatial attention typically uses headphones or sounds in the frontal hemispace, which undersamples panoramic spatial hearing. Crossmodal attention studies also show that visual information impacts spatial hearing and attention. Given the overlap between vision and audition in frontal space, we tested the hypothesis that the distribution of endogenous auditory spatial attention would differ when attending to the front versus back hemispace. Participants performed a non-spatial discrimination task where most sounds were presented at a standard location, but occasionally shifted to other locations. Auditory spatial attention cueing and gradient effects across locations were measured in five experiments. Accuracy was greatest at standard versus shift locations, and was comparable when attending to the front or back. Reaction time measures of cueing and gradient effects were larger when attending to the front versus back midline, a finding that was evident when the range of spatial locations was 180° or 360°. When participants were blindfolded, the front/back differences were still present. Sound localization and divided attention tasks showed that the front/back differences were attentional, rather than perceptual, in nature. Collectively, the findings reveal that the impact of endogenous auditory spatial attention depends on where attention is being focused.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39681824What 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.