ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of two response tracking methods for sound localization with concealed sound sources.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of sound localization depends not only on the acoustic setup but also on the response method used to report the perceived source direction, particularly when visual cues from loudspeaker arrays are minimized. This study compared two response tracking methods specifically designed for concealed horizontal loudspeaker arrays: An egocentric LED-based method and an exocentric tablet-based method. Both methods are compact and require moderate technical effort compared to high-end solutions such as head- or eye-tracking systems. 20 normal-hearing participants completed free-field sound localization tasks using both approaches. The egocentric LED-based method produced a significantly lower localization error (RMSE: 5.4°, 95% CI: 4.77° to 6.10°) than the tablet-based method (7.4°, 95% CI: 6.75° to 8.07°), but required longer trial durations (21% increase). Most of the difference in RMSE was attributable to the discrepancies between the finger position on the tablet surface and the intended target position. Angle-dependent analyses revealed systematic, method-specific effects: Both response methods exhibited a central shift in participants' responses and reduced precision at lateral source positions. Exploratory analyses of the tablet-based method suggested the effect was superimposed by an additional and constant lateral bias across the source angles. These findings demonstrate that the choice of response method can systematically influence measured localization performance and should therefore be taken into account when designing localization experiments and interpreting their results.
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.