↓ Skip to main content

Anatomical limits on interaural time differences: an ecological perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anatomical limits on interaural time differences: an ecological perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00034
Pubmed ID
Authors

William M. Hartmann, Eric J. Macaulay

Abstract

Human listeners, and other animals too, use interaural time differences (ITD) to localize sounds. If the sounds are pure tones, a simple frequency factor relates the ITD to the interaural phase difference (IPD), for which there are known iso-IPD boundaries, 90°, 180°… defining regions of spatial perception. In this article, iso-IPD boundaries for humans are translated into azimuths using a spherical head model (SHM), and the calculations are checked by free-field measurements. The translated boundaries provide quantitative tests of an ecological interpretation for the dramatic onset of ITD insensitivity at high frequencies. According to this interpretation, the insensitivity serves as a defense against misinformation and can be attributed to limits on binaural processing in the brainstem. Calculations show that the ecological explanation passes the tests only if the binaural brainstem properties evolved or developed consistent with heads that are 50% smaller than current adult heads. Measurements on more realistic head shapes relax that requirement only slightly. The problem posed by the discrepancy between the current head size and a smaller, ideal head size was apparently solved by the evolution or development of central processes that discount large IPDs in favor of interaural level differences. The latter become more important with increasing head size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 20%
Engineering 12 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Psychology 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2021.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,238
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,463
of 319,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#25
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.