Viewing condition shifts the perceived auditory soundscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-blind individuals have superior sound processing abilities compared to sighted individuals (Lessard et al., 1998 Nature 395: 278). Here we ask whether sound-processing ability was affected in normally sighted individuals by closing one or both eyes. Sound localization: Participants judged the location of ramped-onset double bursts (30 ms each separated by 30 ms) of white noise played through 16 speakers equally spaced along the azimuth (from -90 to 90 °) in a semicircular array and hidden behind a curtain. Participants listened under four viewing conditions: 1) eyes closed, 2) eyes open, 3) left eye open, and 4) right eye open. Perceived sound location was reported relative to a visual scale. Participants were more accurate in the central visual field and less accurate in the periphery with eyes closed compared to when both eyes were open. When viewing monocularly the perceived location of all sounds shifted toward the centre of the visible visual field (left for left eye viewing, right for right eye viewing) and error increased in the non-visible field. These findings suggest that the perceived position of centrally located sound sources (even when no useful visual information is available) are shifted toward the centre of the visible, visual field. Sound discrimination: Participants were asked to discriminate the relative location of two sound bursts. Two arrays of 8 speakers were equally spaced between 40 – 60 ° in the left and right periphery. Participants listened under the same viewing conditions as in the localization task. Participants had lower thresholds with both eyes open than with both eyes closed or viewing monocularly. In normally sighted individuals sound discrimination ability is not improved when eyes are closed. Viewing condition differentially affects spatial sound processing depending upon the nature of the task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".