The influence of the acoustic context on vertical sound localization in the median plane

Getzmann, Stephan

doi:10.3758/bf03194833

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…88 ), in which an auditory target stimulus is perceived as shifted away from a simultaneously presented background sound 89 . A similar effect has been demonstrated for successive presentation of the target and the background, i.e., when the target stimulus was presented 1 s after the offset of the background sound 90 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Numerical value biases sound localization

Golob

Lewald

Getzmann

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech recognition starts with representations of basic acoustic perceptual features and ends by categorizing the sound based on long-term memory for word meaning. However, little is known about whether the reverse pattern of lexical influences on basic perception can occur. We tested for a lexical influence on auditory spatial perception by having subjects make spatial judgments of number stimuli. Four experiments used pointing or left/right 2-alternative forced choice tasks to examine perceptual judgments of sound location as a function of digit magnitude (1–9). The main finding was that for stimuli presented near the median plane there was a linear left-to-right bias for localizing smaller-to-larger numbers. At lateral locations there was a central-eccentric location bias in the pointing task, and either a bias restricted to the smaller numbers (left side) or no significant number bias (right side). Prior number location also biased subsequent number judgments towards the opposite side. Findings support a lexical influence on auditory spatial perception, with a linear mapping near midline and more complex relations at lateral locations. Results may reflect coding of dedicated spatial channels, with two representing lateral positions in each hemispace, and the midline area represented by either their overlap or a separate third channel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Numerical value biases sound localization

Golob

Lewald

Getzmann

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For these reasons, it would seem that the auditory illusion demonstrated by Bridgeman, Aiken, et al (1997) and Getzmann (2003a) was not analogous to the Roelofs effect. A similar conclusion was drawn by Getzmann (2003b), who added a suggestion that the auditory illusion was instead a location contrast effect occurring within an unbiased reference frame.…”

supporting

confidence: 76%

“…Although Bridgeman, Aiken, et al (1997) suggested the existence of an auditory equivalent to the induced Roelofs effect, a subsequent investigation by Getzmann (2003b) indicated that the auditory illusion was more likely brought about by a location contrast effect. Furthermore, the illusion described by Bridgeman, Aiken, et al (1997) lacked the hallmark of an illusion caused by a distortion of the egocentric reference frame: a dissociation of perception and action localization abilities, with perception prone to the illusion while targeting movements remained accurate Dassonville & Reed, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential visual and auditory effects in a crossmodal induced Roelofs illusion.

Peterson¹,

Bala²,

Dassonville³

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For vision and audition to accurately inform judgments about an object's location, the brain must reconcile the variable anatomical correspondence of the eyes and ears, and the different frames of reference in which stimuli are initially encoded. To do so, it has been suggested that multisensory cues are eventually represented within a common frame of reference. If this is the case, then they should be similarly susceptible to distortion of this reference frame. Following this reasoning, we asked participants to locate visual and auditory probes in a crossmodal variant of the induced Roelofs effect, a visual illusion in which a large, off-center visual frame biases the observer's perceived straight-ahead. Auditory probes were mislocalized in the same direction and with a similar magnitude as visual probes due to the off-center visual frame. However, an off-center auditory frame did not elicit a significant mislocalization of visual probes, indicating that auditory context does not elicit an induced Roelofs effect. These results suggest that the locations of auditory and visual stimuli are represented within a common frame of reference, but that the brain does not rely on stationary auditory context, as it does visual, to maintain this reference frame. Public Significance StatementHuman observers maintain a map of their own location within the world around them, and this egocentric reference frame is used to encode the locations of nearby objects. This study demonstrates that observers use visual, but not auditory, cues to maintain this egocentric reference frame, as they attempt to determine the locations of nearby sights and sounds.

show abstract

“…Prediction of target location was obscured by a random two-step target positioning algorithm to decouple target travel time from the actual change in target location across trials. Further, potential localization cues emanating from the motors and mechanical linkages during target movements between trials were masked by nondirectional Gaussian white noise [65 dB sound pressure level (SPL), A-weighted] broadcast from two loudspeakers that were positioned in the far periphery (Ϯ75°horizontal; 20°vertical; ϳ40 cm behind the target screen), thereby minimizing concerns about auditory after effects (Carlile et al 2001;Getzmann 2003;Thurlow and Jack 1973). The ambient background noise level was 35 dBA with the robotics stationary (i.e., during target presentation) and 55 dBA during target positioning (i.e., between trials).…”

Section: Experimental Chamber Target Apparatus and Positioningmentioning

confidence: 99%