ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Compression may be a general tendency of auditory distance judgments: evidence from distance estimates using a novel echolocation skill.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimates of sound source distance are well described by a compressive function relating judged to actual distance; distance is systematically underestimated at larger distances. The current experiment investigated whether such compression is a general tendency of auditory distance judgments, by measuring the judged distance of silent objects based on a novel skill, using self-produced echolocation mouth clicks. The accuracy and precision of distance estimates were measured for aluminum or foam objects (the latter being less reflective than the former) positioned 30, 60, or 90 cm away from 11 blindfolded, normally sighted participants. The distance estimates were well characterized by compressive power functions. Distances were significantly more underestimated and consistency was significantly worse for the two closest object distances for foam than for aluminum objects. Systematic errors were similar for the two materials. The results are consistent with the idea that compression may be a general tendency of auditory distance judgments, both for sound-producing objects as observed in the literature and for silent objects whose distance is judged using a novel echolocation skill.
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.