ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Bayesian active sound localisation: To what extent do humans perform like an ideal-observer?
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-motion is an essential but often overlooked component of sound localisation. As the directional information of a source is implicitly contained in head-centred acoustic cues, that acoustic input needs to be continuously combined with sensorimotor information about the head orientation in order to decode to a world-centred frame of reference. When utilised, head movements significantly reduce ambiguities in the directional information provided by the incoming sound. In this work, we model human active sound localisation (considering small head rotations) as an ideal observer. In the evaluation, we compared human performance obtained in a free-field active localisation experiment with the predictions of a Bayesian model. Model noise parameters were set a-priori based on behavioural results from other studies, i.e., without any post-hoc parameter fitting to behavioural results. The model predictions showed a general agreement with actual human performance. However, a spatial analysis revealed that the ideal observer was not able to predict localisation behaviour for each source direction. A more detailed investigation into the effects of various model parameters indicated that uncertainty on head orientation significantly contributed to the observed differences. Yet, the biases and spatial distribution of the human responses remained partially unexplained by the presented ideal observer model, suggesting that human sound localisation is sub-optimal.
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.