2000
DOI: 10.1121/1.1310196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Localization of brief sounds: Effects of level and background noise

Abstract: Listeners show systematic errors in vertical-plane localization of wide-band sounds when tested with brief-duration stimuli at high intensities, but long-duration sounds at any comfortable level do not produce such errors. Improvements in high-level sound localization associated with increased stimulus duration might result from temporal integration or from adaptation that might allow reliable processing of later portions of the stimulus. Free-field localization judgments were obtained for clicks and for 3- an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
73
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
5
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Closely related to the perceptional accomplishment of signal detection is the localization of stimuli. Similar to the improved detection in noise, a prolongation of brief sounds can considerably improve their localization (Hofman and van Opstal, 1998;Macpherson and Middlebrooks, 2000). Since marmosets live in forests where visibility is limited, maintaining a sufficient locatability of calls may be crucial for the animals when signalling their position to group mates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Closely related to the perceptional accomplishment of signal detection is the localization of stimuli. Similar to the improved detection in noise, a prolongation of brief sounds can considerably improve their localization (Hofman and van Opstal, 1998;Macpherson and Middlebrooks, 2000). Since marmosets live in forests where visibility is limited, maintaining a sufficient locatability of calls may be crucial for the animals when signalling their position to group mates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For shorter sound durations, the elevation gain decreases systematically with either decreasing stimulus duration (Hofman and Van Opstal, 1998;Vliegen and Van Opstal, 2004) or increasing stimulus level (MacPherson and Middlebrooks, 2000;Vliegen and Van Opstal, 2004). The former phenomenon was proposed to be attributable to a neural integration process that improves its elevation estimate by accumulating spectral evidence about the current HRTF through consecutive short-term (few milliseconds) "looks" at the acoustic input.…”
Section: Short-versus Long-duration Soundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under normal binaural hearing the difference cues dominate entirely because azimuth localization is robust against large variations in sound level and SNRs (e.g., Fig. 3, A-C; see also Good and Gilkey 1996;Hofman and Van Opstal 1998;MacPherson and Middlebrooks 2000;Van Wanrooij and Van Opstal 2005;Vliegen and Van Opstal 2004;Zwiers et al 2001) and does not depend on the integrity of the spectral cues (Hofman and Van Opstal 2003;Morimoto 2001;Oldfield and Parker 1984;Van Wanrooij and Van Opstal 2005;Wightman and Kistler 1997).…”
Section: Spectral Cues For Azimuthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental manipulations can considerably degrade elevation localization performance, whereas azimuth localization is far more robust: e.g., by inserting molds, either binaurally (Hofman et al 1998;Oldfield and Parker 1984) or monaurally (Hofman and Van Opstal 2003;Morimoto 2001;Van Wanrooij and Van Opstal 2005), by introducing background noise (Good and Gilkey 1996;Zwiers et al 2001) or by extensively varying sound levels and sound duration (Hartmann and Rakerd 1993;Hofman and Van Opstal 1998;MacPherson and Middlebrooks 2000;Vliegen and Van Opstal 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%