ArticleTrends in hearing
Interaural Time and Level Differences Contribute Differently to Source Segregation and Spatial Selection.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interaural time and level differences are crucial in sound localization, yet their contributions to sound source segregation and spatial selection remain underspecified. Here, participants completed a spatial auditory selective attention task while we measured hemodynamic activity in the prefrontal cortex and superior temporal gyrus using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Participants listened to a target sound stream and a simultaneous spatially separated speech stream or white noise masker. Sound streams were spatialized with either 50 μs interaural time differences (ITDs), 500 μs ITDs, naturally occurring interaural level differences (ILDs) from a non-individualized head-related transfer function (HRTF), or broadband 10 dB ILDs. Behavioral results revealed a stronger effect of spatial cues when the masker was speech. Error patterns differed in the two difficult conditions, small ITDs and natural ILDs: Small ITDs produced lower hit rates, while naturally occurring ILDs produced higher false alarm rates. Small ITDs led to greater activity in prefrontal cortex and activity in superior temporal gyrus that was lateralized, greater in the hemisphere contralateral to attentional focus, consistent with previous reports. These results suggest that natural ILDs alone support source segregation even if they are insufficient to cause large shifts in perceived lateralization, explaining high false alarm rates (confusions between target and distractor words). In contrast, small ITDs alone may be insufficient to segregate competing sources, leading to low hit and false alarm rates. Together, these results reveal differences in how ITDs and ILDs contribute to auditory scene analysis and spatial attention.
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.