Open Access
Acta Acust.
Volume 4, Number 6, 2020
Article Number 26
Number of page(s) 12
Section Hearing, Audiology and Psychoacoustics
Published online 11 December 2020
  1. J. Blauert: Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  2. P. Zahorik: Auditory distance perception in humans: A summary of past and present research. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 91, 3 (2005) 409–420. [Google Scholar]
  3. H. Kuttruff: Room Acoustics. CRC Press, 2016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. A.J. Kolarik, B.C.J. Moore, P. Zahorik, S. Cirstea, S. Pardhan: Auditory distance perception in humans: A review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 78, 2 (2015) 373–395. [Google Scholar]
  5. A.W. Bronkhorst, T. Houtgast: Auditory distance perception in rooms. Nature 397 (1999) 517–520. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. P. Zahorik: Assessing auditory distance perception using virtual acoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111, 4 (2002a) 1832–1846. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. P. Zahorik: Direct-to-reverberant energy ratio sensitivity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112, 5 (2002b) 2110–2117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. E. Larsen, N. Iyer, C.R. Lansing, A.S. Feng: On the minimum audible difference in direct-to-reverberant energy ratio. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124, 1 (2008) 450–461. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. A.D. Little, D.H. Mershon, P.H. Cox: Spectral content as a cue to perceived auditory distance. Perception 21, 3 (1992) 405–416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. L.B. Evans, H.E. Bass, L.C. Sutherland: Atmospheric absorption of sound: Theoretical predictions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 5B (1972) 1565–1575. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. M.B. Gardner: Distance estimation of 0° or apparent 0°-oriented speech signals in anechoic space. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 45, 1 (1969) 47–53. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. E.C. Healey, R. Jones, R. Berky: Effects of perceived listeners on speakers’ vocal intensity. Journal of Voice 11, 1 (1997) 67–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. P. Zahorik, J.W. Kelly: Accurate vocal compensation for sound intensity loss with increasing distance in natural environments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122, 5 (2007) EL143–EL150. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. H. Traunmüller, A. Eriksson: Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107, 6 (2000) 3438–3451. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. J.W. Philbeck, D.H. Mershon: Knowledge about typical source output influences perceived auditory distance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111, 5 (2002) 1980–1983. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. A. Eriksson, H. Traunmüller: Perception of vocal effort and distance from the speaker on the basis of vowel utterances. Perception & Psychophysics 64, 1 (2002) 131–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. D. Pelegrín-García, B. Smits, J. Brunskog, C.-H. Jeong: Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener distance in different acoustic environments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129, 4 (2011) 1981–1990. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. J.M. Loomis, R.L. Klatzky, J.W. Philbeck, R.G. Golledge: Assessing auditory distance perception using perceptually directed action. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 6 (1998) 966–980. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. E.R. Calcagno, E.L. Abregu, M.C. Eguía, R. Vergara: The role of vision in auditory distance perception. Perception 41, 2 (2012) 175–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. K.T. Gagnon, M.N. Geuss, J.K. Stefanucci: Fear influences perceived reaching to targets in audition, but not vision. Evolution and Human Behavior 34, 1 (2013) 49–54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. M.G. Wisniewski, E. Mercado, K. Gramann, S. Makeig: Familiarity with speech affects cortical processing of auditory distance cues and increases acuity. PLoS One 7, 7 (2012) e41025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. P.D. Coleman: Failure to localize the source distance of an unfamiliar sound. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34, 3 (1962) 345–346. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. D.S. Brungart, K.R. Scott: The effects of production and presentation level on the auditory distance perception of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110, 1 (2001) 425–440. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. J.J. Zwislocki: Sensory Neuroscience: Four Laws of Psychophysics. Springer Science + Business Media, Syracuse, NY, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. D.H. Mershon, J.N. Bowers: Absolute and relative cues for the auditory perception of egocentric distance. Perception 8, 3 (1979) 311–322. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. M.A. Akeroyd, S. Gatehouse, J. Blaschke: The detection of differences in the cues to distance by elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121, 2 (2007) 1077–1089. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. A. Kolarik, S. Cirstea, S. Pardhan: Discrimination of virtual auditory distance using level and direct-to-reverberant ratio cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134, 5 (2013) 3395–3398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. A.J. Kolarik, S. Cirstea, S. Pardhan: Evidence for enhanced discrimination of virtual auditory distance among blind listeners using level and direct-to-reverberant cues. Experimental Brain Research 224, 4 (2013) 623–633. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. A. Bidart, M. Lavandier: Room-induced cues for the perception of virtual auditory distance with stimuli equalized in level. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 102, 1 (2016) 159–169. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. D. Gökçay, M.A. Smith: TÜDADEN: Türkçe’de duygusal ve anlamsal değerlendirmeli norm veri tabanı (TUDADEN: Database of emotionally and semantically validated norms in Turkish language), in: Bilgisayar ve Beyin H. Bingöl, Editors Istanbul, Pan Yaynclk. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  31. M. Kleiner: Electroacoustics. CRC Press, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. M. Cooke: Modelling Auditory Processing and Organisation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  33. A. Farina: Simultaneous measurement of impulse response and distortion with a swept-sine technique, in Proc. 108th Audio Eng. Soc. Conv., number preprint #5093, Paris, France. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  34. P. Corthals: Sound pressure level of running speech: percentile level statistics and equivalent continuous sound level. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 56, 3 (2004) 170–181. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. S. Mathôt, D. Schreij, J. Theeuwes: OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods 44, 2 (2012) 314–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. P.W. Anderson, P. Zahorik: Auditory/visual distance estimation: Accuracy and variability. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 1097 (2014) 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. F.J. Massey Jr: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46, 253 (1951) 68–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. J. Cohen: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  39. M. Paquier, N. Côté, F. Devillers, V. Koehl: Interaction between auditory and visual perceptions on distance estimations in a virtual environment. Applied Acoustics 105 (2016) 186–199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. N.L. Ashton, M.E. Shaw, A.P. Worsham: Affective reactions to interpersonal distances by friends and strangers. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15, 5 (1980) 306–308. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. J.W. Burgess: Interpersonal spacing behavior between surrounding nearest neighbors reflects both familiarity and environmental density. Ethology and Sociobiology 4, 1 (1983) 11–17. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. P.K. Kuhl: Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics 50, 2 (1991) 93–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. R.K. Moore: A Bayesian explanation of the “uncanny valley” effect and related psychological phenomena. Scientific Reports 2, 1 (2012) 1–5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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.