Literature DB >> 2928074

Motion aftereffects with horizontally moving sound sources in the free field.

D W Grantham.   

Abstract

A horizontally moving sound was presented to an observer seated in the center of an anechoic chamber. The sound, either a 500-Hz low-pass noise or a 6300-Hz high-pass noise, repeatedly traversed a semicircular arc in the observer's front hemifield at ear level (distance: 1.5 m). At 10-sec intervals this adaptor was interrupted, and a 750-msec moving probe (a 500-Hz low-pass noise) was presented from a horizontal arc 1.6 m in front of the observer. During a run, the adaptor was presented at a constant velocity (-200 degrees to +200 degrees/sec), while probes with velocities varying from -10 degrees to +10 degrees/sec were presented in a random order. Observers judged the direction of motion (left or right) of each probe. As in the case of stimuli presented over headphones (Grantham & Wightman, 1979), an auditory motion aftereffect (MAE) occurred: subjects responded "left" to probes more often when the adaptor moved right than when it moved left. When the adaptor and probe were spectrally the same, the MAE was greater than when they were from different spectral regions; the magnitude of this difference depended on adaptor speed and was subject-dependent. It is proposed that there are two components underlying the auditory MAE: (1) a generalized bias to respond that probes move in the direction opposite to that of the adaptor, independent of their spectra; and (2) a loss of sensitivity to the velocity of moving sounds after prolonged exposure to moving sounds having the same spectral content.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2928074     DOI: 10.3758/bf03208047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  12 in total

1.  EVIDENCE FOR A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF THE WATERFALL PHENOMENON AND FIGURAL AFTER-EFFECTS.

Authors:  H B BARLOW; R M HILL
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1963-12-28       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Aftereffect of seen motion with a stabilized retinal image.

Authors:  R W SEKULER; L GANZ
Journal:  Science       Date:  1963-02-01       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex.

Authors:  D H HUBEL; T N WIESEL
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1962-01       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Model for auditory localization.

Authors:  C L Searle; L D Braida; M F Davis; H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Detection and discrimination of simulated motion of auditory targets in the horizontal plane.

Authors:  D W Grantham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Auditory cortical neurons in the cat sensitive to the direction of sound source movement.

Authors:  A R Sovijärvi; J Hyvärinen
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1974-06-28       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Are there neurons detecting direction of sound source motion?

Authors:  J A Altman
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1968-09       Impact factor: 5.330

8.  Neuronal activity in the medial geniculate body of the cat during monaural and binaural stimulation.

Authors:  J A Altman; J Syka; G N Shmigidina
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1970       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  A model for after-effects of seen movement.

Authors:  R Sekuler; A Pantle
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1967-05       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Auditory motion aftereffects.

Authors:  D W Grantham; F L Wightman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1979-11
View more
  12 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.  Responses of cat primary auditory cortex neurons to moving stimuli with dynamically changing interaural delays.

Authors:  N I Nikitin; A L Varfolomeev; L M Kotelenko
Journal:  Neurosci Behav Physiol       Date:  2004-11

3.  Processing temporal modulations in binaural and monaural auditory stimuli by neurons in the inferior colliculus and auditory cortex.

Authors:  Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Jason M Roberts; Shigeyuki Kuwada; Duck O Kim; Blagoje Filipovic
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-06-09

4.  Changing-loudness aftereffects: slope of response functions and spectral dependence.

Authors:  A H Reinhardt-Rutland
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1997

5.  Stimulus-specific adaptation to visual but not auditory motion direction in the barn owl's optic tectum.

Authors:  Dante F Wasmuht; Jose L Pena; Yoram Gutfreund
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  Auditory motion direction encoding in auditory cortex and high-level visual cortex.

Authors:  Arjen Alink; Felix Euler; Nikolaus Kriegeskorte; Wolf Singer; Axel Kohler
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  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

8.  Adaptation in sound localization processing induced by interaural time difference in amplitude envelope at high frequencies.

Authors:  Takayuki Kawashima; Takao Sato
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Discrimination contours for moving sounds reveal duration and distance cues dominate auditory speed perception.

Authors:  Tom C A Freeman; Johahn Leung; Ella Wufong; Emily Orchard-Mills; Simon Carlile; David Alais
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  The Perception of Auditory Motion.

Authors:  Simon Carlile; Johahn Leung
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.