pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.25119 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-29 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

Effect of an auditory static distractor on the perception of an auditory moving target

Noa Kemp , Cynthia Tarlao , Catherine Guastavino , B. Suresh Krishna This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC
keywords auditory motiondistractorfront-back discriminationspectral overlapsound perceptionvelocity limitdirection discrimination
0
0 comments X

The pith

A static distractor impairs perception of moving sound direction only when frequencies overlap for front-back discrimination.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that a static distractor sound reduces the upper velocity limit for discriminating the direction of a revolving target sound. This reduction happens if and only if the distractor shares spectral content with the target in the frequencies important for front-back discrimination. The authors show that a side-placed distractor is as effective as a front-placed one. A reader would care because this reveals how specific acoustic features control our ability to track moving sounds amid other noises in daily life.

Core claim

Listeners can discriminate the direction of motion of a revolving sound only up to an upper limit velocity, beyond which front-back discrimination fails. We show that a static distractor sound reduces this upper limit. The reduction is observed precisely when the distractor spectrally overlaps with the target in the frequency range relevant for front/back discrimination. A distractor on the right is as effective as a distractor at the front in reducing the upper limit.

What carries the argument

Spectral overlap in the frequency range relevant for front-back discrimination, which selectively reduces the upper limit for motion direction perception.

If this is right

  • The upper limit for direction discrimination decreases in the presence of a static distractor.
  • This decrease requires spectral overlap with the target in front-back relevant frequencies.
  • Distractor location does not modulate the effect beyond the spectral condition.
  • Interference with front-back discrimination explains the impairment in moving target perception.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These findings may help explain challenges in auditory tracking in noisy real-world settings like traffic or crowds.
  • Computational models of sound localization could incorporate this spectral-specific interference to predict performance.
  • Testing with dynamic distractors or visual cues could extend the understanding of multi-source auditory scenes.
  • Frequency-selective noise cancellation might mitigate the observed effects in hearing devices.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction in upper limit is due to interference with front-back discrimination rather than general masking or attention effects.

What would settle it

If the upper limit does not decrease when there is spectral overlap in the relevant frequency range, or if it decreases without such overlap, the specific role of front-back discrimination would be falsified.

read the original abstract

It is known that listeners lose the ability to discriminate the direction of motion of a revolving sound (clockwise vs. counterclockwise) beyond a critical velocity ("the upper limit"), likely due to degraded front-back discrimination. Little is known about how this ability is affected by simultaneously present distractor sounds, despite the real-life importance of tracking moving sounds in the presence of distractors. We hypothesized that the presence of a static distractor sound would impair the perception of moving target sounds and reduce the upper limit, and show that this is indeed the case. A distractor on the right was as effective as a distractor at the front in reducing the upper limit despite the likely importance of resolving front-back confusions. By manipulating the spectral content of both the target and distractor, we found that the upper limit was reduced if and only if the distractor spectrally overlaps with the target in the frequency range relevant for front/back discrimination. Our findings form the first steps toward a better understanding of the tracking of multiple sounds in the presence of distractors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines how a static auditory distractor affects listeners' ability to discriminate the direction of motion (clockwise vs. counterclockwise) of a revolving target sound. It reports that the distractor reduces the upper velocity limit for this discrimination, that a right-positioned distractor is as effective as a frontal one, and that the reduction occurs if and only if the distractor spectrally overlaps the target in the frequency band relevant for front-back discrimination.

Significance. If the spectral-overlap result is shown to be specific to front-back cue interference rather than general masking, the work would provide useful empirical data on auditory motion tracking in the presence of distractors, extending auditory scene analysis research. The directional finding and the position-independence result are clear, but the mechanistic interpretation requires stronger controls to elevate significance beyond an initial observation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that reduction occurs 'if and only if' the distractor spectrally overlaps in the front/back-relevant range is load-bearing for the interpretation that the effect is specific to front-back discrimination. The manuscript does not report whether stimulus intensity, loudness, or energetic/informational masking were equated across overlap and non-overlap conditions; without these controls the result could reflect differences in overall masking effectiveness rather than the hypothesized mechanism.
  2. [Abstract] The finding that a right-positioned distractor is as effective as a frontal one is presented as evidence against a simple front-back resolution account, yet the manuscript does not provide direct measurements of front-back error rates as a mediator variable to test this interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Participant numbers, exact stimulus parameters (velocity ranges, durations, spectral details), and statistical tests (including any post-hoc exclusions) are not summarized in the abstract and should be added to the main text for reproducibility.
  2. The abstract states a clear hypothesis and directional result but would benefit from a brief methods overview or reference to a methods section to allow readers to evaluate the spectral manipulation details.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have prompted us to clarify several aspects of our interpretation. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that reduction occurs 'if and only if' the distractor spectrally overlaps in the front/back-relevant range is load-bearing for the interpretation that the effect is specific to front-back discrimination. The manuscript does not report whether stimulus intensity, loudness, or energetic/informational masking were equated across overlap and non-overlap conditions; without these controls the result could reflect differences in overall masking effectiveness rather than the hypothesized mechanism.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this potential alternative explanation. The manuscript does not include explicit loudness matching or separate quantification of energetic versus informational masking between the spectral-overlap and non-overlap conditions. All stimuli were presented at matched overall intensity levels, but we agree this does not fully rule out differences in masking effectiveness. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion that acknowledges this limitation, describes the stimulus calibration procedures used, and explains why the observed pattern (impairment only with overlap in the front-back band) remains more consistent with cue-specific interference than with nonspecific masking. We will also propose targeted follow-up experiments that equate masking more rigorously. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The finding that a right-positioned distractor is as effective as a frontal one is presented as evidence against a simple front-back resolution account, yet the manuscript does not provide direct measurements of front-back error rates as a mediator variable to test this interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that direct measurement of front-back error rates would constitute a stronger test of mediation. Such measurements were not collected in the present experiments, so we cannot supply them here. Our interpretation of the position-independence result rests on the well-documented association, established in prior literature, between the upper velocity limit and front-back discrimination difficulties. The equivalent effectiveness of a lateral distractor nevertheless suggests that the impairment is not confined to frontal front-back resolution. In the revision we will moderate the wording around this claim, explicitly note the absence of mediator data as a limitation, and recommend that future work include front-back error measurements to evaluate the proposed mechanism. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical experimental report

full rationale

The paper presents behavioral measurements of an auditory motion discrimination task with and without static distractors, varying spectral overlap. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-referential predictions appear in the reported methods or results. The central finding—that upper-limit reduction occurs if and only if distractors overlap the target in the front/back-relevant frequency band—is an observed empirical pattern, not a quantity that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The work therefore contains no load-bearing steps of the enumerated circular kinds and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard psychophysical assumptions about listener performance and on the premise that front-back confusion is the dominant limit on motion discrimination; no new entities are postulated and no parameters are fitted in the reported result.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The upper velocity limit for motion-direction discrimination is caused by degraded front-back discrimination.
    Invoked when the authors link the distractor effect to front-back cues and when they interpret the spectral-overlap result.
  • domain assumption Listeners' judgments reflect perceptual limits rather than strategic response biases.
    Standard assumption in psychophysical direction-discrimination tasks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1251 out tokens · 34926 ms · 2026-05-18T03:50:47.588210+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The Perception of Auditory Motion

    Carlile S, Leung J. The Perception of Auditory Motion. Trends Hear. 2016;20:2331216516644254. doi:10.1177/2331216516644254

    work page doi:10.1177/2331216516644254 2016

  2. [2]

    Minimum auditory movement angle: Binaural localization of moving sound sources

    Perrott DR, Musicant AD. Minimum auditory movement angle: Binaural localization of moving sound sources. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;62(6):1463-1466. doi:10.1121/1.381675

    work page doi:10.1121/1.381675 1977

  3. [3]

    Minimum audible movement angle as a function of signal frequency and the velocity of the source

    Perrott DR, Tucker J. Minimum audible movement angle as a function of signal frequency and the velocity of the source. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83(4):1522-1527. doi:10.1121/1.395908

    work page doi:10.1121/1.395908 1988

  4. [4]

    Auditory velocity discrimination in the horizontal plane at very high velocities

    Frissen I, Féron FX, Guastavino C. Auditory velocity discrimination in the horizontal plane at very high velocities. Hear Res. 2014;316:94-101. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.014 2014

  5. [5]

    Discrimination of sound source velocity in human listeners

    Carlile S, Best V. Discrimination of sound source velocity in human listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(2):1026-1035. doi:10.1121/1.1436067

    work page doi:10.1121/1.1436067 2002

  6. [6]

    Auditory motion perception emerges from successive sound localizations integrated over time

    Roggerone V, Vacher J, Tarlao C, Guastavino C. Auditory motion perception emerges from successive sound localizations integrated over time. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):16437. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52742-0 28

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52742-0 2019

  7. [7]

    On the robustness of upper limits for circular auditory motion perception

    Camier C, Boissinot J, Guastavino C. On the robustness of upper limits for circular auditory motion perception. J Multimodal User Interfaces. 2016;10(3):285-298. doi:10.1007/s12193-016- 0225-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s12193-016- 2016

  8. [8]

    Upper limits of auditory rotational motion perception

    Féron FX, Frissen I, Boissinot J, Guastavino C. Upper limits of auditory rotational motion perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(6):3703-3714. doi:10.1121/1.3502456

    work page doi:10.1121/1.3502456 2010

  9. [9]

    Contribution of spectral cues to human sound localization

    Langendijk EHA, Bronkhorst AW. Contribution of spectral cues to human sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(4):1583-1596. doi:10.1121/1.1501901

    work page doi:10.1121/1.1501901 2002

  10. [10]

    Auditory motion perception: Snapshots re-visited

    Grantham W. Auditory motion perception: Snapshots re-visited. In: Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments. 1997:295-313

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    Informational Masking

    Kidd G, Mason CR, Richards VM, Gallun FJ, Durlach NI. Informational Masking. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR, eds. Auditory Perception of Sound Sources. Springer US; 2008:143-189. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71305-2_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71305-2_6 2008

  12. [12]

    Localization of Moving Sound Stimuli under Conditions of Spatial Masking

    Petropavlovskaya EA, Shestopalova LB, Salikova DA. Localization of Moving Sound Stimuli under Conditions of Spatial Masking. Hum Physiol. 2024;50(2):116-126. doi:10.1134/S0362119723600534

    work page doi:10.1134/s0362119723600534 2024

  13. [13]

    Spatial Release from Masking with a Moving Target

    Pastore MT, Yost WA. Spatial Release from Masking with a Moving Target. Front Psychol. 2017;8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02238

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02238 2017

  14. [14]

    Spatial Release from Masking for Tones and Noises in a Soundfield under Conditions Where Targets and Maskers Are Stationary or Moving

    Pastore MT, Yost WA. Spatial Release from Masking for Tones and Noises in a Soundfield under Conditions Where Targets and Maskers Are Stationary or Moving. Audiol Res. 2022;12(2):99-112. doi:10.3390/audiolres12020013

    work page doi:10.3390/audiolres12020013 2022

  15. [15]

    Spatial release from masking

    Litovsky RY. Spatial release from masking. 2012;Acoust. Today(8.2):18

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Effect of motion on speech recognition

    Davis TJ, Grantham DW, Gifford RH. Effect of motion on speech recognition. Hear Res. 2016;337:80-88. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2016.05.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heares.2016.05.011 2016

  17. [17]

    Detectability of tonal signals with changing interaural phase differences in noise

    Grantham DW, Luethke LE. Detectability of tonal signals with changing interaural phase differences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83(3):1117-1123. doi:10.1121/1.396056

    work page doi:10.1121/1.396056 1988

  18. [18]

    Comparison of the masked thresholds of a simulated moving and stationary auditory signal

    Wilcott RC, Gales RS. Comparison of the masked thresholds of a simulated moving and stationary auditory signal. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):451-456. doi:10.1037/h0061466

    work page doi:10.1037/h0061466 1954

  19. [19]

    The effect of a free-field auditory target’s motion on its detectability in the horizontal plane

    Xiao X, Grantham DW. The effect of a free-field auditory target’s motion on its detectability in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;102(3):1907-1910. doi:10.1121/1.421013

    work page doi:10.1121/1.421013 1997

  20. [20]

    Spatial Release From Masking Under Different Reverberant Conditions in Young and Elderly Subjects: Effect of Moving or Stationary Maskers at Circular and Radial Conditions

    Muñoz RV, Aspöck L, Fels J. Spatial Release From Masking Under Different Reverberant Conditions in Young and Elderly Subjects: Effect of Moving or Stationary Maskers at Circular and Radial Conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res JSLHR. 2019;62(9):3582-3595. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-19-0092

    work page doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-h-19-0092 2019

  21. [21]

    cocktail party

    Cho AY, Kidd G Jr. Auditory motion as a cue for source segregation and selection in a “cocktail party” listening environment. J Acoust Soc Am. 2022;152(3):1684-1694. doi:10.1121/10.0013990 29

    work page doi:10.1121/10.0013990 2022

  22. [22]

    Effect of an auditory static distractor on the perception of an auditory moving target

    Kemp N, Tarlao C, Guastavino C, Krishna BS. Effect of an auditory static distractor on the perception of an auditory moving target. arXiv. Preprint posted online October 29, 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.25119

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25119 2025

  23. [23]

    Virtual Sound Source Positioning Using Vector Base Amplitude Panning

    Pulkki V. Virtual Sound Source Positioning Using Vector Base Amplitude Panning. J Audio Eng Soc. 1997;45(6):456-466

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    JASP (0.18)

    JASP Team. JASP (0.18). Published online 2023. https://jasp-stats.org/

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    acousticLoudness function

    MathWorks. acousticLoudness function. Published online 2024. Accessed January 24, 2025. https://www.mathworks.com/help/audio/ref/acousticloudness.html#responsive_offcanvas

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    just perceptible

    Fransen E, Topsakal V, Hendrickx JJ, et al. Occupational Noise, Smoking, and a High Body Mass Index are Risk Factors for Age-related Hearing Impairment and Moderate Alcohol Consumption is Protective: A European Population-based Multicenter Study. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008;9(3):264-276. doi:10.1007/s10162-008-0123-1 1 APPENDIX 1 2 3 4 FIG. 7. Results f...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10162-008-0123-1 2008