Open Access
Table A.1
Overview of studies investigating the contribution of binaural cues to distance estimation of (nearby) sound sources. (
) Binaural cues contribute. (°) Unclear or mixed findings. (
) Binaural cues do not contribute.
| Study | Method | Normalization | Findings and conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holt and Thurlow [9] | Anechoic conditions. Far-field sources between 1.80 m and 19 m. Participants judged distance in feet. | Level [dB(A)] | ( ) Performance improved for lateral sources. Binaural cues are important for distance perception. |
| Brungart et al. [7] | Anechoic conditions. Near-field sources at distances between 0.15 m and 1.00 m. Participants pointed to the perceived location. | Distance-related amplitude normalization and level-roving | ( ) Most accurate distance estimation for lateral sources. ILDs are salient cues for distance estimation. |
| Brungart and Simpson [12] | Static binaural synthesis with near-field KEMAR HRTFs. Near-field sources at distances between 0.12 m and 1.00 m. Participants pointed to the perceived location. | Signal power and level-roving | ( ) Performance worse than in Brungart et al. [7], maybe due to non-individual HRTFs. Still proper distance estimation for lateral sources. ILDs are salient cues for distance estimation. |
| Gardner [10] | Anechoic conditions. Far-field sources at distances between 0.90 m and 9.00 m. Participants judged distance by choosing a loudspeaker. | Level [dB(B)] | (°) Bad performance for frontal sources. Small head movements led to better performance. Changes in binaural cues might be beneficial. |
| Kan et al. [13] | Static binaural synthesis with synthesized near-field HRTFs based on individual far-field HRTFs. Near-field sources at distances between 0.10 m and 1.00 m. Participants pointed to the perceived location. | Same as Brungart et al. [7], but without level-roving | (°) Poor performance. Minor distance discrimination for lateral sources at distances  0.20 m. ILDs are no powerful cues. |
| Kopčo et al. [20] | Static binaural synthesis with non-individualized near-field BRIRs. Near-field sources at distances between 0.15 m and 1.00 m. 2AFC test – Participants indicated whether the second source was closer or farther than the first one. | Near-ear level [dB(SPL)] and level-roving | (°) Distance estimation based on DRR and ILD cue combination, but DRR cues are more dominant and reliable. |
| Spagnol et al. [8] | Static binaural synthesis with synthesized near-field HRTFs based on KEMAR far-field HRTFs. Near-field sources at distances between 0.20 m and 1.00 m. 2AFC test – Participants indicated whether the second source was closer or farther than the first one. | Same as Brungart et al. [7], but without level-roving | (°) Poor performance. Similar to Kan et al. [13], slightly improved performance for lateral sources at distances  0.20 m. ILDs are no powerful cues. |
| Simpson and Stanton [14] | Quasi-anechoic conditions. Near- and far-field sources at distances between 0.30 m and 2.66 m. Participants rated perceived distance on a scale. | None | ( ) No influence of head movements on distance estimation. Binaural cues are not important for distance perception. |
| Rosenblum et al. [15] | Acoustically normal room. Near-field sources at distances between 0.38 m and 1.10 m. Participants judged the source reachability. | None | ( ) No influence of head movements on distance judgment accuracy. Binaural cues are not important for distance judgment. |
| Shinn-Cunningham et al. [16] | Static binaural synthesis with individual near-field HRTFs/BRIRs. Near-field sources at distances between 0.15 m and 1.00 m. Participants judged distance with a GUI. | No sufficient information | ( ) Poor performance. ILD cues do not contribute to distance perception in reverberant conditions and do not provide robust distance percepts even in anechoic conditions. |
| Kopčo and Shinn-Cunningham [19] | Static binaural synthesis with individual near-field BRIRs. Far- and near-field sources at distances between 0.15 m and 1.70 m. Participants judged distance with a GUI. | Near-ear level [dB(SPL)] and level-roving | ( ) Performance was better for lateral sources than for frontal sources and worse without low-frequency energy. In reverberant conditions, only DRR cues are used to judge distance, and not the ILD cues. |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.