ArticleTrends in hearing
Minimum Audible Angle and the Acoustic Change Complex Elicited by Azimuthal Shifts in Low-Frequency Sounds: Effects of Age.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared the behavioral minimum audible angle (MAA) and the electrophysiological acoustic change complex (ACC) elicited by an azimuthal shift in sound location. To examine age effects, 63 participants with normal or near-normal hearing were divided into three age groups (Young, Mid-Aged, and Older). The stimuli were narrow bands of noise centered at 500 Hz to facilitate reliance on primarily binaural temporal cues. Putative spatial location was manipulated by means of head-related transfer functions under headphones. MAA results showed that performance was dependent on the reference location, with performance becoming poorer as the reference location shifted away from midline. The Young group had smaller MAAs than the Older group, and performance of the Mid-Age group was intermediate. Measurement of the ACC was restricted to shifts away from midline, and results showed no ACC for shifts of 4.5° and 9° but present ACCs for shifts of 13.5°, 18°, and 36°. The robustness of the ACC, as measured with the intertrial phase coherence metric, grew with increasing azimuthal shift. For shifts of 13.5° and 18°, Young participants had more robust ACCs than Older participants. Although age-related deficits were found in both the MAA and in the robustness of the ACC, no associations were observed at the individual level between MAA and ACC measures. Further work is necessary to evaluate the ACC elicited by shifts from off-midline reference locations before a firm conclusion can be reached that the ACC is not a viable objective proxy for the MAA.
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.