↓ Skip to main content

Auditory/visual distance estimation: accuracy and variability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
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
Auditory/visual distance estimation: accuracy and variability
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01097
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul W. Anderson, Pavel Zahorik

Abstract

Past research has shown that auditory distance estimation improves when listeners are given the opportunity to see all possible sound sources when compared to no visual input. It has also been established that distance estimation is more accurate in vision than in audition. The present study investigates the degree to which auditory distance estimation is improved when matched with a congruent visual stimulus. Virtual sound sources based on binaural room impulse response (BRIR) measurements made from distances ranging from approximately 0.3 to 9.8 m in a concert hall were used as auditory stimuli. Visual stimuli were photographs taken from the participant's perspective at each distance in the impulse response measurement setup presented on a large HDTV monitor. Participants were asked to estimate egocentric distance to the sound source in each of three conditions: auditory only (A), visual only (V), and congruent auditory/visual stimuli (A+V). Each condition was presented within its own block. Sixty-two participants were tested in order to quantify the response variability inherent in auditory distance perception. Distance estimates from both the V and A+V conditions were found to be considerably more accurate and less variable than estimates from the A condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 80 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 26%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 29%
Psychology 16 19%
Neuroscience 13 15%
Computer Science 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,180,774
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,465
of 29,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,712
of 254,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#214
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 254,867 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.