Auditory localization of nearby sources. Head-related transfer functions

Brungart, Douglas S.; Rabinowitz, W. M.

doi:10.1121/1.427180

Cited by 307 publications

(258 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

239

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, ILDs can occur, at least for the human listeners: Several studies have shown that also at frequencies below 1 kHz, ILDs of up to 5 dB are generated at sound-source distances around 1 m (Brungart and Rabinowitz 1999;Kuwada et al 2010). Even though both cues were shown to be present in low-frequency sounds, a recent study of Macpherson and Middlebrooks (2002) showed that listeners judged ITDs as the prominent cue to determine the azimuthal position of a low-frequency signal.…”

Section: Fig 5 Localization Thresholds and Resultant Release From Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound Localization in Noise by Gerbils and Humans

Lingner

Wiegrebe

Grothe

2012

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection and localization of a target sound in the presence of concurrent, spatially distributed masking sounds is one of the most challenging tasks for the mammalian auditory system. Previous studies demonstrated that the ability to localize signals is decreased by interfering noise. In order to directly compare the behavioral performance in a signal processing task in noise between gerbils and humans in the free sound field, we quantified their localization ability for a lowfrequency signal in the presence of six masking noise sources surrounding the subject. Thresholds were measured both for masking noises that were correlated or uncorrelated across the masking sources. Overall, the gerbils required a higher signal/noise ratio to detect the low-frequency signal than the humans; that is, the behavioral performance of the gerbils was considerably worse than that of the humans. Moreover, switching from maskers that were uncorrelated across the masking sources to correlated maskers resulted in more masking in gerbils but in a release from masking in humans. These results would suggest that the gerbil may not be a good animal model for binaural processing. However, simulations of the localization thresholds in a numerical model of binaural processing in gerbils and humans reveal that both the inferior overall performance in gerbils and the opposite effect of masker correlation on the detection thresholds can be attributed to the smaller head size and the wider peripheral auditory filters in gerbils. Thus, the current data indicate that the binaural processor itself (i.e., the evaluation of signals coming from the two ears) is equally sensitive in gerbils and humans. However, the physical limitations imposed by the small head prevent the gerbil from performing equally well in the current paradigm.

show abstract

Section: Fig 5 Localization Thresholds and Resultant Release From Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound Localization in Noise by Gerbils and Humans

Lingner

Wiegrebe

Grothe

2012

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…of ILDs (35), which is arguably a prominent auditory distance cue (18,29,36). Further experiments and/or modeling analyses will be required to clarify the perceptual weighting of these potential distance cues.…”

Section: Spectral Contrast Manipulation Affected Auditory Distance Pementioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries in behavioral and neural responses to spectral cues demonstrate the generality of auditory looming bias

Baumgartner

Reed

Tóth

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of auditory looming bias have shown that sources increasing in intensity are more salient than sources decreasing in intensity. Researchers have argued that listeners are more sensitive to approaching sounds compared with receding sounds, reflecting an evolutionary pressure. However, these studies only manipulated overall sound intensity; therefore, it is unclear whether looming bias is truly a perceptual bias for changes in source distance, or only in sound intensity. Here we demonstrate both behavioral and neural correlates of looming bias without manipulating overall sound intensity. In natural environments, the pinnae induce spectral cues that give rise to a sense of externalization; when spectral cues are unnatural, sounds are perceived as closer to the listener. We manipulated the contrast of individually tailored spectral cues to create sounds of similar intensity but different naturalness. We confirmed that sounds were perceived as approaching when spectral contrast decreased, and perceived as receding when spectral contrast increased. We measured behavior and electroencephalography while listeners judged motion direction. Behavioral responses showed a looming bias in that responses were more consistent for sounds perceived as approaching than for sounds perceived as receding. In a control experiment, looming bias disappeared when spectral contrast changes were discontinuous, suggesting that perceived motion in distance and not distance itself was driving the bias. Neurally, looming bias was reflected in an asymmetry of late eventrelated potentials associated with motion evaluation. Hence, both our behavioral and neural findings support a generalization of the auditory looming bias, representing a perceptual preference for approaching auditory objects.auditory looming bias | electroencephalography | distance motion perception | sound externalization | head-related transfer functions I magine yourself alone in the wilderness. Suddenly, a threatening sound permeates the darkness. Is it approaching? This is a critical question when it comes to your survival because approaching objects usually pose a greater threat than receding objects (1). The phenomenon that approaching sounds are more salient than receding sounds is commonly termed "auditory looming bias." Looming bias is reflected in a broad variety of psychophysical tasks related to salience and alertness: bias in loudness-change estimates (2-4) and judgments of duration (5), improved discriminability of motion speed (6), underestimated distances for egocentrically moving (4) or bypassing sounds (7,8), and reduced reaction time for auditory (3, 9) and visual (3) targets preceded by looming sounds. In animals, looming biases result in faster learning speed during associative conditioning (10) and longer duration of attention (11). This list shows that looming bias triggers a variety of percepts across a wide range of psychoacoustic tasks. Despite its broad behavioral significance, the mechanisms underlying auditory looming bias are still poorly ...

show abstract

“…Implicitly, we have suggested that listeners can use a disparity between interaural time differences and ILDs to recognize that a source is not facing them directly. We realize that such disparity has also been proposed as a cue to source elevation (Searle, et al, 1975) as well as to the distance of nearby sources (Brungart, 1999;Brungart and Rabinowitz, 1999). Furthermore, we acknowledge that there are a host of other possible cues that listeners may use to perceive facing angle.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%