Literature DB >> 1564199

Minimum audible movement angle in the horizontal plane as a function of stimulus frequency and bandwidth, source azimuth, and velocity.

D W Chandler1, D W Grantham.   

Abstract

Minimum audible movement angles (MAMAs) were measured in the horizontal plane for four normal-hearing adult subjects in a darkened anechoic chamber. On each trial, a single stimulus was presented, and the subject had to say whether it came from a stationary loudspeaker or from a loudspeaker that was moving at a constant angular velocity around him. Thresholds were established by adaptively varying stimulus duration. In experiment 1, MAMAs were measured as a function of center frequency (500-5000 Hz), velocity (10 degrees-180 degrees/s), and direction of motion (left versus right). There was no effect of direction of motion. MAMAs increased with velocity, from an average of 8.8 degrees of arc for a target moving at 10 degrees/s to an average of 20.2 degrees of arc for a target moving at 180 degrees/s. MAMAs were higher for a 3000-Hz tone than for tones of lower or higher frequencies, as has been previously reported [D. R. Perrott and J. Tucker, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 1522-1527 (1988)]. In experiment 2, minimum audible angles (MAAs) were measured with sequentially presented stationary tone pulses (500-5000 Hz), and were shown to exhibit the same dependence on signal frequency that the MAMAs showed (average MAA at 3000 Hz: 8.4 degrees; average MAA at the other frequencies: 3.4 degrees). In experiment 3, MAMAs and MAAs were measured as a function of stimulus bandwidth (centered at 3000 Hz) and listening azimuth (0 degrees vs 60 degrees). Average MAAs decreased monotonically as stimulus bandwidth increased from 0 Hz to wideband (from 8.4 degrees to 1.2 degrees at 0 degrees azimuth; from 11.3 degrees to 1.5 degrees at 60 degrees azimuth). As in experiment 1, MAMAs increased with stimulus velocity, from values comparable to the MAAs for the slowest-velocity (10 degrees/s) targets to 70 degrees of arc or more in the poorest condition (third-octave band of noise presented at a velocity of 180 degrees/s and an azimuth of 60 degrees). MAMAs obtained in the slower-velocity conditions depended in the same way on stimulus bandwidth and listening azimuth that MAAs depended on these variables. In no case was the MAMA ever smaller than the MAA. It is hypothesized that a minimum integration time is required to achieve optimal performance in a dynamic spatial resolution task. Average estimates of this minimum time based on the current data vary from 336 ms (for targets presented at midline) to 1116 ms (for narrow-band targets presented at 60 degrees azimuth).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1564199     DOI: 10.1121/1.402443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  19 in total

1.  Adaptation to auditory motion in the horizontal plane: effect of prior exposure to motion on motion detectability.

Authors:  D W Grantham
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-08

2.  Can measures of sound localization acuity be related to the precision of absolute location estimates?

Authors:  Jordan M Moore; Daniel J Tollin; Tom C T Yin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Human sensitivity to differences in the rate of auditory cue change.

Authors:  Erin S Maloff; D Wesley Grantham; Daniel H Ashmead
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Six Degrees of Auditory Spatial Separation.

Authors:  Simon Carlile; Alex Fox; Emily Orchard-Mills; Johahn Leung; David Alais
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-31

5.  Effects of rate and age in processing interaural time and level differences in normal-hearing and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Kyle Easter; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Auditory perception of motor vehicle travel paths.

Authors:  Daniel H Ashmead; D Wesley Grantham; Erin S Maloff; Benjamin Hornsby; Takabun Nakamura; Timothy J Davis; Faith Pampel; Erin G Rushing
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  Auditory motion as a cue for source segregation and selection in a "cocktail party" listening environment.

Authors:  Adrian Y Cho; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 2.482

8.  The effect of spatial auditory landmarks on ambulation.

Authors:  Adham M Karim; Kavelin Rumalla; Laurie A King; Timothy E Hullar
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 2.840

9.  Distortions of perceived auditory and visual space following adaptation to motion.

Authors:  Ross W Deas; Neil W Roach; Paul V McGraw
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Effects of virtual speaker density and room reverberation on spatiotemporal thresholds of audio-visual motion coherence.

Authors:  Narayan Sankaran; Johahn Leung; Simon Carlile
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.