Basic binaural cues cannot fully explain front-back and elevation judgments
Evidence
The aforementioned models of directional hearing do not explain how we can resolve front-to-back ambiguities or the elevation of the source. There are in fact two ways that are used by the human being to perform these tasks. — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 729
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- QUESTION: What are the two ways humans resolve front-to-back and elevation ambiguity? This sets up the pinna/head-related transfer function material that presumably follows.
Related
- Binaural direction cues alone cannot distinguish front from back or vertical source angle (similarity 0.89)
- Ear separation on one axis makes horizontal binaural cues strongest (similarity 0.83)
- Head movements resolve front-back ambiguity by creating direction-specific binaural cue changes (similarity 0.83)
- Binaural models differ on whether the brain uses narrow or wide directional receptive fields (similarity 0.83)
- Front and back sound localization requires other mechanisms than ITD (similarity 0.81)
- Horizontal localization uses binaural cues while vertical localization does not (similarity 0.80)
- Pinnae shape the sound spectrum to encode elevation and front-back position (similarity 0.79)
- Sound localization is best for frontal sounds and at low and high frequencies (similarity 0.79)
- Dynamic binaural head-movement cues override conflicting visual evidence of source location (similarity 0.79)
- Ceiling reflections are as detectable as lateral ones despite weak binaural cues (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Binaural localization accuracy depends on monaural coding efficiency before interaural comparison
#complicates(0.75) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1026