Literature DB >> 2926001

Headphone simulation of free-field listening. II: Psychophysical validation.

F L Wightman1, D J Kistler.   

Abstract

Listeners reported the apparent spatial positions of wideband noise bursts that were presented either by loudspeakers in free field or by headphones. The headphone stimuli were digitally processed with the aim of duplicating, at a listener's eardrums, the waveforms that were produced by the free-field stimuli. The processing algorithms were based on each subject's free-field-to-eardrum transfer functions that had been measured at 144 free-field source locations. The headphone stimuli were localized by eight subjects in virtually the same positions as the corresponding free-field stimuli. However, with headphone stimuli, there were more front-back confusions, and source elevation seemed slightly less well defined. One subject's difficulty with elevation judgments, which was observed both with free-field and with headphone stimuli, was traced to distorted features of the free-field-to-eardrum transfer function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2926001     DOI: 10.1121/1.397558

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


  82 in total

1.  Spatial processing in the auditory cortex of the macaque monkey.

Authors:  G H Recanzone
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-10-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Plasticity in the neural coding of auditory space in the mammalian brain.

Authors:  A J King; C H Parsons; D R Moore
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-10-24       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  From spectrum to space: the contribution of level difference cues to spatial receptive fields in the barn owl inferior colliculus.

Authors:  David R Euston; Terry T Takahashi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The coding of spatial location by single units in the lateral superior olive of the cat. II. The determinants of spatial receptive fields in azimuth.

Authors:  Daniel J Tollin; Tom C T Yin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  The coding of spatial location by single units in the lateral superior olive of the cat. I. Spatial receptive fields in azimuth.

Authors:  Daniel J Tollin; Tom C T Yin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Influence of static eye and head position on tone-evoked gaze shifts.

Authors:  Tom J Van Grootel; Marc M Van Wanrooij; A John Van Opstal
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Location and acoustic scale cues in concurrent speech recognition.

Authors:  D Timothy Ives; Martin D Vestergaard; Doris J Kistler; Roy D Patterson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Eye-gaze and arrow cues influence elementary sound perception.

Authors:  Jeremy I Borjon; Stephen V Shepherd; Alexander Todorov; Asif A Ghazanfar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Phase effects on the perceived elevation of complex tones.

Authors:  William M Hartmann; Virginia Best; Johahn Leung; Simon Carlile
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Saccades create similar mislocalizations in visual and auditory space.

Authors:  Hannah M Krüger; Thérèse Collins; Bernhard Englitz; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.