Comparing the Auditory Distance and Externalization of Virtual Sound Sources Simulated Using Nonindividualized Stimuli.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Trends in Hearing Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23312165241285695
Mathieu Lavandier, Lizette Heine, Fabien Perrin
{"title":"Comparing the Auditory Distance and Externalization of Virtual Sound Sources Simulated Using Nonindividualized Stimuli.","authors":"Mathieu Lavandier, Lizette Heine, Fabien Perrin","doi":"10.1177/23312165241285695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When reproducing sounds over headphones, the simulated source can be externalized (i.e., perceived outside the head) or internalized (i.e., perceived within the head). Is it because it is perceived as more or less distant? To investigate this question, 18 participants evaluated distance and externalization for three types of sound (speech, piano, helicopter) in 27 conditions using nonindividualized stimuli. Distance and externalization ratings were significantly correlated across conditions and listeners, and when averaged across listeners or conditions. However, they were also decoupled in some circumstances: (1) Sound type had different effects on distance and externalization: the helicopter was evaluated as more distant, while speech was judged as less externalized. (2) Distance estimations increased with simulated distances even for stimuli judged as internalized. (3) Diotic reverberation influenced distance but not externalization. Overall, a source was not rated as externalized as soon as and only if its perceived distance exceeded a threshold (e.g., the head radius). These results suggest that distance and externalization are correlated but might not be aspects of a single perceptual continuum. In particular, a virtual source might be judged as both internalized and with a distance. Hence, it could be important to avoid using a scale related to distance when evaluating externalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48678,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Hearing","volume":"28 ","pages":"23312165241285695"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500226/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165241285695","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When reproducing sounds over headphones, the simulated source can be externalized (i.e., perceived outside the head) or internalized (i.e., perceived within the head). Is it because it is perceived as more or less distant? To investigate this question, 18 participants evaluated distance and externalization for three types of sound (speech, piano, helicopter) in 27 conditions using nonindividualized stimuli. Distance and externalization ratings were significantly correlated across conditions and listeners, and when averaged across listeners or conditions. However, they were also decoupled in some circumstances: (1) Sound type had different effects on distance and externalization: the helicopter was evaluated as more distant, while speech was judged as less externalized. (2) Distance estimations increased with simulated distances even for stimuli judged as internalized. (3) Diotic reverberation influenced distance but not externalization. Overall, a source was not rated as externalized as soon as and only if its perceived distance exceeded a threshold (e.g., the head radius). These results suggest that distance and externalization are correlated but might not be aspects of a single perceptual continuum. In particular, a virtual source might be judged as both internalized and with a distance. Hence, it could be important to avoid using a scale related to distance when evaluating externalization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较使用非个性化刺激模拟的虚拟声源的听觉距离和外化程度
当通过耳机重现声音时,模拟声源可以是外化的(即在头外感知),也可以是内化的(即在头内感知)。这是因为它被认为距离更远还是更近?为了研究这个问题,18 名参与者在 27 种条件下使用非个性化刺激对三种声音(语音、钢琴、直升机)的距离和外化进行了评估。在不同的条件和听者之间,以及在不同听者或条件下的平均值之间,距离和外化评分都有明显的相关性。然而,在某些情况下,它们也是分离的:(1) 声音类型对距离和外化的影响不同:直升机被评为距离较远,而语音被评为外化程度较低。(2) 即使是被判定为内化的刺激物,距离估计值也会随着模拟距离的增加而增加。(3) 叠加混响影响距离,但不影响外化。总之,只要且只有当声源的感知距离超过阈值(如头部半径)时,声源才不会被评为外化。这些结果表明,距离和外化是相互关联的,但可能不是一个感知连续体的两个方面。特别是,虚拟声源可能既被判断为内化的,又被判断为有距离的。因此,在评估外化时,避免使用与距离相关的量表可能很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Trends in Hearing
Trends in Hearing AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGYOTORH-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Trends in Hearing is an open access journal completely dedicated to publishing original research and reviews focusing on human hearing, hearing loss, hearing aids, auditory implants, and aural rehabilitation. Under its former name, Trends in Amplification, the journal established itself as a forum for concise explorations of all areas of translational hearing research by leaders in the field. Trends in Hearing has now expanded its focus to include original research articles, with the goal of becoming the premier venue for research related to human hearing and hearing loss.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation to Noise in Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection and Word Recognition On the Feasibility of Using Behavioral Listening Effort Test Methods to Evaluate Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implant Users Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users (Why) Do Transparent Hearing Devices Impair Speech Perception in Collocated Noise? Remixing Preferences for Western Instrumental Classical Music of Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1