The Perception of Auditory Motion

Carlile, Simon; Leung, Johahn

doi:10.1177/2331216516644254

Cited by 106 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 146 publications

(243 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, our finding seems to be at odds with those of Kitagawa and Ichihara (2002) which suggest that visual MAEs cannot occur from auditory stimuli. We speculate that in Kitagawa and Ichihara's failure to observe a visual MAE from looming and receding auditory stimuli is due to the poor spatial cues provided by looming and receding auditory stimuli compared to those of horizontally moving auditory stimuli (Carlile and Leung, 2016). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In this way, the findings of Maeda et al (2004) and Hedger et al (2013) are much like the positive aftereffects (i.e., changes in visual motion perception in the same direction as the adapting auditory stimulus) found in the sound contingent visual motion aftereffect (Hidaka et al, 2011a), and the negative aftereffects (i.e., changes in visual motion perception in the opposite direction as the adapting auditory stimulus) found for verbal language descriptions of visual events (Dils and Boroditsky, 2010), respectively. Furthermore, the looming/receding auditory motion stimuli used in Kitagawa and Ichihara's (2002) study were simply tones increasing or decreasing in volume and provided weak motion cues compared to those from veridical horizontal auditory motion (Carlile and Leung, 2016). Thus, although previous studies have been mixed as to whether auditory motion is sufficient to induce a visual MAE, none of the studies to date have examined whether visual MAEs can occur following adaption to auditory stimuli with horizontal apparent motion cues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory Motion Elicits a Visual Motion Aftereffect

Berger

Ehrsson

2016

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual motion aftereffect is a visual illusion in which exposure to continuous motion in one direction leads to a subsequent illusion of visual motion in the opposite direction. Previous findings have been mixed with regard to whether this visual illusion can be induced cross-modally by auditory stimuli. Based on research on multisensory perception demonstrating the profound influence auditory perception can have on the interpretation and perceived motion of visual stimuli, we hypothesized that exposure to auditory stimuli with strong directional motion cues should induce a visual motion aftereffect. Here, we demonstrate that horizontally moving auditory stimuli induced a significant visual motion aftereffect—an effect that was driven primarily by a change in visual motion perception following exposure to leftward moving auditory stimuli. This finding is consistent with the notion that visual and auditory motion perception rely on at least partially overlapping neural substrates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Motion Elicits a Visual Motion Aftereffect

Berger

Ehrsson

2016

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The amplitude of movement was ≤ 1.5°for 39% of the trials during condition ST. According to Carlile and Leung (2016), data from several studies spanning 1971 to 2014 show that the minimum audible movement angle (MAMA) for wide band stimuli, defined as the minimum distance that a stimulus needs to be moved to be distinguished from a stimulus that is stationary, is ≥ 1.5°for durations of movement less than 200 ms, and then appears to asymptote at ≈ 1.5°for durations greater than 200 ms. Thus, it can be assumed that there were many trials during condition ST where the subjects' movements were too small to elicit any perceptible differences in spite of the active head tracking.…”

Section: Conditions Without Head Movements: Sø and Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of head tracking on the externalization of speech stimuli for non-individualized binaural synthesis

Hendrickx

Stitt

Messonnier

et al. 2017

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binaural reproduction aims at recreating a realistic audio scene at the ears of the listener using headphones. In the real acoustic world, sound sources tend to be externalized (that is perceived to be emanating from a source out in the world) rather than internalized (that is perceived to be emanating from inside the head). Unfortunately, several studies report a collapse of externalization, especially with frontal and rear virtual sources, when listening to binaural content using non-individualized Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs). The present study examines whether or not head movements coupled with a head tracking device can compensate for this collapse. For each presentation, a speech stimulus was presented over headphones at different azimuths, using several intermixed sets of non-individualized HRTFs for the binaural rendering. The head tracker could either be active or inactive, and the subjects could either be asked to rotate their heads or to keep them as stationary as possible. After each presentation, subjects reported to what extent the stimulus had been externalized. In contrast to several previous studies, results showed that head movements can substantially enhance externalization, especially for frontal and rear sources, and that externalization can persist once the subject has stopped moving his/her head.

show abstract

“…From a psychophysical perspective, previous work has debated whether auditory motion is perceived directly or simply inferred from changes in distance by using “snapshots” at successive locations, with the bulk of the evidence suggesting that the auditory system can do both depending on the conditions (Carlile & Leung, 2016; Grantham, 1997). Egocentric auditory distance perception has already been shown to be a contributing factor in the auditory looming bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looming sounds are perceived as faster than receding sounds

Neuhoff

2016

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each year thousands of people are killed by looming motor vehicles. Throughout our evolutionary history looming objects have posed a threat to survival and perceptual systems have evolved unique solutions to confront these environmental challenges. Vision provides an accurate representation of time-to-contact with a looming object and usually allows us to interact successfully with the object if required. However, audition functions as a warning system and yields an anticipatory representation of arrival time, indicating that the object has arrived when it is still some distance away. The bias provides a temporal margin of safety that allows more time to initiate defensive actions. In two studies this bias was shown to influence the perception of the speed of looming and receding sound sources. Listeners heard looming and receding sound sources and judged how fast they were moving. Listeners perceived the speed of looming sounds as faster than that of equivalent receding sounds. Listeners also showed better discrimination of the speed of looming sounds than receding sounds. Finally, close sounds were perceived as faster than distant sounds. The results suggest a prioritization of the perception of the speed of looming and receding sounds that mirrors the level of threat posed by moving objects in the environment.

show abstract

The Perception of Auditory Motion

Cited by 106 publications

References 146 publications

Auditory Motion Elicits a Visual Motion Aftereffect

Auditory Motion Elicits a Visual Motion Aftereffect

Influence of head tracking on the externalization of speech stimuli for non-individualized binaural synthesis

Looming sounds are perceived as faster than receding sounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About