Jump to content

Human auditory ecology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human auditory ecology (HAE) is a research program in hearing sciences studying the interactions between humans and their acoustic environments.

Concept

[edit]

HAE studies the "relationship between the acoustic environments in which people live and their auditory needs in these environments.[1] This auditory ecology, a concept initially coined by Stuart Gatehouse,[1] therefore refers to the auditory environments in which humans live and function, the tasks to be undertaken by humans in these complex acoustic environments and the importance of these tasks in daily life and daily routines. The use of this concept was initially restricted to the case of urban life.[2] However, urban habitats are relatively recent in humankind history and evolution, and natural soundscapes have preceded the apparition of Homo sapiens, some 300,000 years ago. For this reason, the concept of auditory ecology was extended to study a different and evolutionary-based question, namely how humans perceive ecological processes at work in natural habitats through their peripheral and central auditory system.

Auditory perception of natural soundscapes

[edit]

Natural soundscapes correspond to the complex arrangements of biological (animal vocalizations) and geophysical (wind, rain, stream) sounds shaped by sound propagation through non-anthropogenic habitats.[3][4][5][6] According to its most recent definition, human auditory ecology (HAE) is a multidisciplinary research programme attempting to map and explain the ability of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired human listeners to perceive natural soundscapes.[7][8][9] In this specific case, HAE aims at characterizing how and to which extent humans perceive ecological processes underlying habitats marginally affected by human activity through their ears and their auditory brain, with a life-span perspective.[3][8][9] HAE could be considered as a field of auditory psychophysics, auditory neurosciences and audiology. More broadly, HAE aims to encourage hearing scientists who traditionally work on speech and music perception in urban settings to collaborate with soundscape ecologists, ecoacousticians and neuro-ethologists, and share expertise with environmental and architectural acousticians, anthropologists, philosophers and geographers.[8][9][5]

Extended definition of human auditory ecology

[edit]

HAE studies the (presumably ancestral) monitoring functions of the human auditory system. These monitory auditory functions are used by human auditory system to build a perceptual representation of the close environment, orient and navigate, assess resources (food, water, shelter) and danger (e.g., flooding, predators), opportunities for action, and the general health of the environment. These monitoring functions are assumed to help human listeners build a sense of place and time and operate in their acoustic environment.[7][8][1]

From such a perspective, HAE is based on (i) concepts derived from soundscape ecology such as the acoutic adaptation and acoustic niche hypothesis,[10][11][5][4] and (ii) psychophysical and neuroscientific models and methods. HAE operates on the large acoustic databases of natural soundscapes collected by soundscape ecologists and eco-acousticians using standardized procedures and recording material.[10][11][4] HAE aims to characterize the monitoring functions of the human auditory system through ordinary listening behaviors (listening to animal vocalisations such as bird songs or insect stridulations, detecting presence of water or rain, assessing water discharge or wind strength ...). Moreover, HAE investigates the extent to which these monitoring functions are adapted to specific information conveyed by natural soundscapes, whether they operate throughout the life span or whether they emerge through individual learning or cultural transmission.[8]

HAE aims to identify testable working hypotheses guided by computational models of the human auditory system, in order to (i) unveil low and high-level auditory mechanisms engaged in the auditory perception of soundscapes associated with natural habitats, green or blue species within or outside cities,[12][13] (ii) how they develop through life and (iii) the extent to which they are affected by exposure, learning and culture.[14] Although HAE aims to improve fundamental knowledge on the human auditory system and how humans interact with natural environments, it also aims at providing novel solutions to screen and rehabilitate hearing loss via hearing aids and cochlear implants.[15]

Acoustical aspects

[edit]

Contribution of soundscape ecology and ecoacoustics

[edit]

Because most vertebrate species send and receive sound for essential life functions (e.g., navigation, courtship, foraging[16]), the collection of sounds perceived in an environment (i.e., soundscapes[17]) can reflect ecological processes.[10] Thus, by studying the structure of the soundscape over space and time, soundscape ecology and ecoacoustics aim to study the dynamics of ecological processes.[4][18] Soundscape ecology is predicated on two key hypotheses: the acoustic niche hypothesis, where signals have evolved to partition in acoustic space to minimize overlap between species[19] and the acoustic adaptation hypothesis, which states that species' optimize transmission of vocalizations to overcome habitat constraints. Although, the acoustic adaptation hypothesis has received limited support in experimental studies.[20][21] Recent developments in passive sound collection offer the opportunity to cost-effectively monitor soundscapes at enormous scales.[22] For example, the Australian Acoustic Observatory comprises 360 permanent recording stations[23] and the National Park Service's Natural Sounds and Night Skies division have collected recordings at over 490 sites across the United States.[24] Extracting relevant biological information from resulting enormous datasets remains challenging.  Species vocalizations of interest may be manually or automatically extracted, using listening, visualizations of spectrograms, or recognition algorithms.[25] Alternatively, acoustic indices can be used to summarize the properties of the soundscape.[26][27]

Contribution of computational auditory sciences

[edit]

The pioneering work of Singh and Theunissen[28] suggests that high spectral modulations (harmonicity) and slow amplitude modulations distinguish biological (animal vocalizations) from geophysical sounds (wind, rain, stream sounds) in natural scenes. Subsequent work by McDermott and Simoncelli[29] showed that geophysical sounds such as wind, rain or stream sounds can be distinguished from other sounds by their textural properties. The latter are reflected in specific regularities or "statistics" of amplitude-modulation patterns computed by the human auditory system in response to these sounds.[29]

The statistics of these sounds and scenes could be characterized further using the large, ecologically valid databases collected by soundscape ecologists and ecoacousticians, allowing to test further efficient-coding principles positing that perceptual systems (e.g., the auditory system) have evolved to encode environmental stimuli in the most efficient way, and that the properties of auditory mechanisms  closely match the statistical properties of natural sounds and scenes.[30][28][31][32][33] The first studies based on this approach indicate that the central auditory system of humans has access to sufficient sensory information in the spectro-temporal domain to achieve accurate auditory discrimination of terrestrial biomes and their changes across moments of the day and seasons.[13][9]

Psychoacoustical aspects

[edit]

Historical background

[edit]

HAE aims to understand human auditory perception of natural (i.e. biophonic and geophonic) acoustic environments.  In contrast, the majority of experimental studies of human auditory perception have utilized parametrically generated stimuli which lack acoustic complexity of natural environmental sounds.[34] The prevailing methodological paradigms of psychoacoustics have traditionally focused on investigating how sounds' physical properties relate to the perception of abstract sound qualities such as pitch, loudness and duration without considering sounds' semantic or referential aspects. Furthermore, traditional psychoacoustic methods have relied primarily on detection and discrimination tasks in which a specific acoustic parameter is manipulated (e.g. frequency or intensity) under conditions of low stimulus uncertainty and performed by trained listeners. Overall, traditional psychoacoustics has been highly successful in describing human auditory abilities in relationship to underlying anatomy and physiology, leading to tremendous breakthroughs and achievements in communication and audio technology.[35] However, this approach has had limited utility for understanding the perception of meaningful acoustically complex environmental sounds in everyday life, which typically involves perception of sound producing objects and events along with associated materials and actions.[36][37]

Ecological psychoacoustics

[edit]

A growing awareness of these limitations to ecological validity in traditional psychoacoustics has led to the broadening of theoretical approaches and modifications of experimental procedures used in the studies of auditory perception to include tasks involving sound identification, categorization and comprehension.  Later efforts explored principles of perceptual organization of complex auditory scenes (under the general framework of auditory scene analysis) and formulated questions in terms of actionable and behaviorally relevant properties of specific sound (under the framework of ecological psychology).  A further attempt to bridge the gap between investigations of auditory perception utilizing traditional psychoacoustic paradigms and those pertaining to everyday listening (ordinary listening behaviors) has been proposed under the general heading of ecological psychoacoustics. Ecological psychoacoustics generally considers auditory perception in terms of the ecologically relevant behavioral goals of the listener in specific tasks, situational contexts and environments (e.g. cognition-perception-action loop), while employing psychoacoustic experimental methods to maintain high internal validity.

For example, numerous studies have investigated aspects of listeners' perception of sound producing objects, materials, and actions solely based on associated environmental sounds.[38] These studies consistently demonstrate remarkably accurate perception of sound sources based on acoustic signals alone. For instance, listeners can accurately judge the size and behavior of objects, such as predicting the timing of successive bounces of different types of balls, dropped from different heights, based on preceding sounds. Additionally, listeners can discern the sex and posture of a walker from the sound of their footsteps,[39] estimate the volume of a container from the sound of liquid being poured into it, or infer the configuration of clapping hands from the sound produced.[40]

Ecologically based taxonomies

[edit]

Efforts have been also made to develop comprehensive ecologically based taxonomies that would apply to sounds of everyday listening environments[41][36] and integrate them into broader acoustic communication frameworks.[42] However, due to the large inherent variability and complexity of everyday environmental sounds, no general all-inclusive taxonomy has been developed. Nevertheless, valuable classifications have emerged, notably distinguishing between the perception of actions/events and objects/materials.[43][36][44]  Experimental approaches so far have also mostly failed to distinguish among different types of listening experience such as active and focused listening versus background listening when listener is not actively seeking one or more specific sounds by monitors environment as a whole.[42] Furthermore, unlike HAE, previous approaches to the study of auditory perception have made no systematic distinction between natural (biophonic or geophonic) versus mechanically or electronically generated and technophonic sounds.

Auditory perception of natural soundscapes, biophony and geophony

[edit]

Two psychoacoustical studies have explored the ability of human listeners to discriminate natural soundscapes in a categorical way.[13][15] Consistent with predictions of a modelling study,[12] these behavioral studies reveal that human listeners are able to discriminate soundscapes recorded by soundscape ecologists in a nature reserve with their ears only. More precisely, these studies showed that naive (untrained) listeners hear changes in habitat (forest, meadow, grassland, chaparral), moment of the day (dawn, dusk, etc.) and season (summer, fall, etc.), although this capacity is not optimal. Another psychoacoustical study based on 200 scenes including natural settings (forests, parks, hiking trails) corroborated the idea that human listeners consistently perceive global attributes of natural soundscapes, that is structural properties (e.g., openness), constancy properties (e.g., transience), or functional properties (e.g., navigability).[45] These first studies pave the way for further empirical studies aiming to assess the human ability to perceive natural soundscapes and their variations using the sound databases recorded by soundscape ecologists and ecoacousticians.

Statistical representation in ecological sound perception

[edit]

Many natural environments, such as a flock of birds singing in the trees or a swarm of insects chirping in the grass are composed of large numbers of similar sound events. As a result, their properties tend to be fairly stable over time. Such sounds are commonly referred to as “textures”, and are thought to be represented in the auditory system with summary statistics.[46][29] Specifically, the brain appears to base its decisions about such sounds on a time-averaged statistical representation, and does not retain the temporal acoustic detail of the individual sound features composing the texture.[47] This average appears to be computed over a window of several seconds.[48] The averaging process occurs even in the presence of other sounds, and helps us to hear other sounds that occur concurrently with a texture.[49] The brain even appears to “fill in” the statistical properties of a texture when it is temporarily masked by a concurrent sound.[50] In contrast, for sounds that are more temporally sparse, such as one bird singing, or a branch breaking, the auditory system does retain the temporal acoustic detail. It appears the auditory system employs two modes when listening to ecological sounds, one that retains the acoustic detail when the sounds are temporally sparse, and the other that averages the acoustic properties over time when the sounds are temporally dense. Although these two modes of hearing have been explored for individual sound sources and for superpositions of a texture with other sounds, we know less about how the auditory system operates when we hear mixtures of ecological sounds. This latter question is an active area of research in human auditory ecology.

Developmental aspects

[edit]

If human perceptual systems have evolved to efficiently encode environmental signals, as suggested by the efficient neural coding hypothesis,[51][52] then these mechanisms may be evolutionarily ancestral, and as such may emerge early in ontogenetic development.[53] Few studies to date have explicitly tested this hypothesis for natural sounds, and in general few studies have looked at how young children perceive environmental sounds other than speech and music.

One series of studies.[54][55] investigated adults and young infants' perception of water sounds. According to the efficient neural coding hypothesis, perceptual systems need to extract the statistical structure of environmental stimuli in order to achieve an information theoretical optimum, i.e. encoding the greatest amount of information at the lowest cost. One common feature of the statistical structure of many natural stimuli is scale-invariance, the property of exhibiting the same statistical structure at different spatial or temporal scales. The studies conducted with water sounds tested whether sounds produced by a generative model of gamma tone chirps obeying scale-invariance were perceived as instances of natural water sounds, while those having a variable-scale structure were not. Indeed, adults rated a wide range of scale-invariant, but not variable-scale, sounds as natural recordings of brooks and streams, and qualitatively described them as various forms of water.[54] Five-month-old infants also showed categorical discrimination between scale-invariant and variable-scale sounds,[14] and the newborn brain just 1–3 days after birth responded differentially to scale-invariant and variable-scale water sounds in the left inferior frontal and temporal areas[55]

These results suggest that the perception of natural sounds may indeed be efficient early on in human development, and pave the way for further studies of this hypothesis involving a much greater variety of natural sounds and soundscapes.

Emotional aspects and health benefits

[edit]

Psychological studies

[edit]

Emotion perception of environmental sounds can be described within the dimensional view of affect, specifically along a combination of several continua.[56][57] Two dimensions often dominate, specifically valence (unpleasant to pleasant) and arousal (calming to exciting),[58][59] Although emotions could be high on either nor neither dimension, sounds that elicit emotions near the valence extremes (e.g., very pleasant or very unpleasant), also tend to be high in the arousal dimension (e.g., exciting or activating). The valence dimension reflects the motivational theory of emotion, where valence of an emotion supports a person's motivation.[60][61] Unpleasant emotions (e.g., in response to a lion) facilitate attention and inspire action.[62][63] Pleasant emotions (e.g., in response to birdsong) encourage approach behavior and support well-being, such as through stress recovery[64][65] or creative thinking.[66] Thus, both pleasant and unpleasant emotions serve important functions. Adults with permanent, sensorineural hearing loss do not report a full range of emotional responses to non-speech sounds; their range of ratings of valence is less extreme (less pleasant, less unpleasant) compared to their peers with normal hearing, even when they are similarly aged.[67][68] This is true for natural and manmade sounds.[69]

Soundscape ecology and ecoacoustics

[edit]

Exposure to nature provides a variety of health benefits.[70] Soundscapes in particular provide crucial information, where sounds enable most species, including humans, to surveil their surroundings.[16][71] From an evolutionary perspective,[72] a soundscape that is full of natural sounds, can be an indicator of an environment rich in resources needed for survival. Thus, a natural acoustic environment stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system, allowing mental recuperation and a reduction in stress-related behaviour. Two psychological theories explain the mechanistic basis of the restorative effects of exposure to natural soundscapes: Attention Restoration Theory, the ability of nature to replenish attention[73] and Stress Recovery theory, where nature is less arousing than fatigue-inducing urban environments, leading to recovery from stress.[74] A synthesis of studies examining the evidence of health benefits of natural soundscapes revealed decreased stress and annoyance and improved health and positive affective outcomes.[75] Examples of beneficial outcomes of listening to natural sounds included decreased pain, lower stress, improved mood, and enhanced cognitive performance[75]

Soundscape studies

[edit]

Soundscape studies play an important role within the framework of HAE, focusing on human sensory and emotional auditory processing.[76][77] Defined by ISO 12913 as the acoustic environment perceived by humans within a contextual framework,[78] soundscape studies diverge from traditional environmental noise research by emphasizing positive health and perceptual outcomes,[79] particularly regarding the (measurable) restorative properties of natural sounds.[80][81] Contrary to assumptions within HAE, soundscape studies reveal cultural variations in individuals' and communities' responses to natural sounds.[82] The ISO 12913 series, comprising theoretical frameworks,[78] data collection[83] and data analysis methods, serves as a cornerstone in soundscape literature. Advancements in the field include innovative methods for visualizing and analyzing quantitative soundscape data,[84] alongside prediction models that simulate human perceptions of present and future/hypothetical acoustic environments.[85] These models utilize objective metrics as predictors and subjective metrics as descriptors,[86] enabling a deeper understanding of how humans experience acoustic environments within context and driving progress in understanding and optimizing auditory experiences in natural habitats.

Audiological aspects

[edit]

Effects of aging and hearing loss

[edit]

Older adults with normal hearing or with mild hearing losses appear to maintain generally robust source recognition of environmental sounds in quiet.[87][88][89] However, when tested under more challenging conditions which closer approximate everyday listening environments, older adults with and without hearing loss require greater signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to identify sounds in scenes.[90][91] Middle-aged and older adults with normal hearing and those with some degree of sensorineural hearing loss also perform poorer than younger adults in tasks which involve perception of multiple environmental sounds.[92] Furthermore, irrespective of age and severity of hearing loss, people with hearing loss exhibit great difficulties discriminating natural soundscapes that vary systematically in terms of place (forest, meadow, grassland, chaparral), moment of the day (dawn, midday, dusk and night) and season (autumn, winter, spring and summer)[15]

Effects of conventional hearing aids

[edit]

The primary complaint of people with hearing impairment is difficulty to understand speech in noise.[93] As such, substantial knowledge has been acquired about mechanisms behind speech perception (2) and several speech-in-noise testing tools have been developed.[94][95][96] People with hearing impairment can benefit from the use of hearing aids.[97] Research in auditory reality of hearing aid users has shown that people spend approximately 31% of time in situations involving speech communication, whereas they spend about 45% of time in situations where they are monitoring surroundings or passive listening.[98] It has been proposed that HAE should not be limited to the case of urban settings and communication but should be extended to perception of wild or rural soundscapes.[8] The ability to experience sounds of nature can lead to feeling less pain, lower stress, enhanced mood and improved cognitive performance.[75] People who use hearing aids report positive listening experiences that involve not only communication, but also perception of environmental and nature sounds (e.g., "the forest sounds completely different," "nice to hear the wind howling," "can hear traffic and the rain," "heard rustling leaves and rustling of the trees," "can hear the sparrow singing.").[99][100]

Effects of cochlear implants

[edit]

First time users of sensory aids, hearing aids and cochlear implants often report new or renewed ability to recognize various natural, machine-produced or electronic sounds in their environments.[101][38][102][103] Improvement in environmental sound perception is frequently cited by adults with hearing loss as an anticipated benefit of sensory aids.[104][105][106][107][108] Nevertheless, when explicitly tested, the ability of cochlear implant users to identify common environmental sounds shows considerable decrement compared to normal hearing peers.[109] Limited current research, further indicates no significant improvement in environmental sound perception following implantation.[110][109][111] Given the ubiquity of nonlinguistic environmental sounds as well as their recognized importance for maintaining personal safety, well-being and awareness of their surroundings.[36][112][113] environmental sound perception appears to be a fertile area for theoretical and applied auditory perception research[38]

Effects of hearing loss and hearing aids on emotional processing

[edit]

Adults with permanent, sensorineural hearing loss do not experience a full range of emotional responses to non-speech sounds; they report emotional responses that are extreme (less pleasant and less unpleasant) than do their similarly aged peers with normal hearing.[67][68] The reason for this reduced range of emotional responses is unclear.  One explanation is audible bandwidth. Hearing loss in adults commonly causes changes in audible bandwidth, especially reduced audibility of high frequencies, such as those about 2000 Hz.[114] However, low- and high-frequency cues (<800 and >2000 Hz, respectively) are important for emotional responses to non-speech sounds.[115] Therefore, improving audibility of high frequency cues, such as with a hearing aid or cochlear implant, would be expected to expand the range of emotional responses to sound. However, even while using the current standard-of-care intervention for permanent hearing loss, including hearing aids, adults demonstrate this reduced range of pleasant responses[68][116] Therefore, other acoustic cues, such as amplitude modulations, might play an important role in emotional processing of non-speech sounds.[117] Because modern hearing aids have amplitude compression, it is possible that assistive listening devices are reducing the amplitude modulation cues important for emotional responses to sounds.[118]

Auditory awareness of environmental changes

[edit]

Contribution of sounsdcape ecology and eco-acoustics

[edit]

Soundscape ecology and ecoacoustics study ecological questions using the analysis of environmental sound.[11] Because of their unique climate, vegetation and animal communities, ecosystems are associated with environmental sounds showing unique patterns and dynamics.[119] Changing of those soundscapes have been shown to reflect local disturbances within ecosystems. This is exemplified by the invasive ant Wasmannia auropunctata affecting the local fauna and therefore silencing the forest of New Caledonia,[120] the soundscape's diversity showing a flat response in burned area in comparison to unburned area, 3 years after a massive wildfire in the Chiricahua national monument in Arizona[121] or the increase in biological sounds in cities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethnographic surveys in human geography highlight the awareness of human beings in the face of these changes.[122] Altogether, these findings warrant detailed psychoacoustical investigations aiming to assess the ability of human listeners to hear changes reflecting local disturbances within ecosystems.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Gatehouse S., Elberling C., Naylor G. (1999) Aspects of auditory ecology and psychoacoustic function as determinants of benefits from and candidature for non-linear processing in hearing aids. In A. N. Rasmussen, P. A. Osterhammel, T. Anderson, & T. Poulsen (Eds.), Auditory models and non-linear hearing instruments (18th Danavox Symposium) (pp. 221–233). Copenhagen, Denmark: Holmens Trykkeri
  2. ^ Keidser G., Naylor G., Brungart D.G., Caduff A., Campos J., Carlile S., Carpenter M.G., Grimm G., Hohmann V., Holube I., Launer S., Lunner T., Mehra R., Rapport F., Slaney M., Smeds K. (2020) The quest for ecological validity in hearing science: What it is, why it matters, and how to advance it. Ear and Hearing 41 : 5S–19S. doi : 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001241
  3. ^ a b Grinfeder, E., Lorenzi, C., Haupert, S., & Sueur, J. (2022). What do we mean by "soundscape"? A functional description. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 894232 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.894232
  4. ^ a b c d Farina A., Gage S.H. (2017) Ecoacoustics: The ecological role of sounds (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken). ISBN 978-1-119-23069-4
  5. ^ a b c C. Pijanowski, Bryan (2024). Principles of Soundscape Ecology Discovering Our Sonic World. The University of Chicago Press.
  6. ^ Acoustic ecology
  7. ^ a b Fay R. (2009) Soundscapes and the sense of hearing of fishes. Integrative Zoology 4: 26–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00132.x
  8. ^ a b c d e f Lorenzi, C., Apoux, F., Grinfeder, E., Krause, B., Miller-Viaca, N., Sueur, J., (2023). Human auditory ecology : Extending hearing research to the perception of natural soundscapes by humans in rapidly-changing environments. Trends in Hearing, 27, 1-28. doi: 10.1177/23312165231212032
  9. ^ a b c d Thoret, E., Varnet, L., Boubenec, Y., Ferriere, R., Le Tourneau, F.-M., Krause, B. & Lorenzi, C. (2020). Characterizing amplitude and frequency modulation cues in natural soundscapes: A pilot study in four habitats of a biosphere reserve. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,147, 3260-3274
  10. ^ a b c Pijanowski B.C., Villanueva-Rivera L.J., Dumyahn S.L., Farina A., Krause B.L., Napoletano B.M., Gage S.H., Pieretti N. (2011) Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape. Bioscience 61: 203–216. doi :10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6
  11. ^ a b c Sueur, J., Farina, A. Ecoacoustics: the Ecological Investigation and Interpretation of Environmental Sound. Biosemiotics 8, 493–502 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9248-x
  12. ^ a b Thoret, "Characterizing amplitude and frequency modulation cues in natural soundscapes: A pilot study on four habitats of a biosphere reserve", J. Acoust. Soc, vol. 147, 2020, p. 3260–3274
  13. ^ a b c Apoux, F., Miller-Viacava, N., Férriere, R., Dai, H., Krause, B., Sueur, J. & Lorenzi, C. (2023). Auditory discrimination of natural soundscapes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 153, 2706-2723
  14. ^ a b Gervain, J., Werker, J. F. & Geffen, M. N. Category-Specific Processing of Scale-Invariant Sounds in Infancy. PLoS ONE9, e96278 (2014)
  15. ^ a b c Nicole Miller-Viacava, Diane Lazard, Tanguy Delmas et Bernie Krause, "Sensorineural hearing loss alters auditory discrimination of natural soundscapes", International Journal of Audiology, 1er novembre 2023, p. 1–10, ISSN 1708-8186, PMID 37909429, DOI 10.1080/14992027.2023.2272559
  16. ^ a b Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper, Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: the inner ears and processing. Hearing Research, 2000. 149(1–2): p. 1-10
  17. ^ Schafer, R.M., The tuning of the world. 1977, New York, NY, USA: Knopf
  18. ^ Pijanowski, B., et al., What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science.Landscape Ecology, 2011. 26(9): p. 1213-1232
  19. ^ Krause, B., The niche hypothesis. The Soundscape Newsletter, 1993. 6: p. 6-10
  20. ^ Hardt, B. and L. Benedict, Can you hear me now? A review of signal transmission and experimental evidence for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis. Bioacoustics, 2021. 30(6): p. 716-742
  21. ^ Gillard, G.L. and J.J.L. Rowley, Assessment of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis in frogs using large-scale citizen science data. Journal of Zoology, 2023. 320(4): p. 271-281
  22. ^ Hill, A.P., et al., AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment.Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2018. 9(5): p. 1199-1211
  23. ^ Roe, P., et al., The Australian Acoustic Observatory. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2021. 12(10): p. 1802–1808
  24. ^ Buxton, R.T., et al., Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas. Science, 2017. 356: p. 531-533
  25. ^ Kahl, S., et al., BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring.Ecological Informatics, 2021. 61: p. 101236
  26. ^ Bradfer-Lawrence, T., et al., Guidelines for the use of acoustic indices in environmental research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2019. 10(10): p. 1796-1807
  27. ^ Buxton, R.T., et al., Efficacy of extracting indices from large-scale acoustic recordings to monitor biodiversity.Conservation Biology, 2018. 32(5): p. 1174-1184
  28. ^ a b Singh N.C., Theunissen F.E. (2003) Modulation spectra of natural sounds and ethological theories of auditory processing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114 : 3394–3411. doi: 10.1121/1.1624067
  29. ^ a b c McDermott J.H., Simoncelli E.P. (2011) Sound texture perception via statistics of the auditory periphery: evidence from sound synthesis. Neuron 71: 926–940. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.06.032
  30. ^ Lesica N.A., Grothe B. (2008) Efficient temporal processing of naturalistic sounds. Plos One, 3: e1655. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001655
  31. ^ Lewicki M.S. (2002) Efficient coding of natural sounds. Nature Neuroscience 5: 356-363. doi: 10.1038/nn831
  32. ^ Attias H., Schreiner C. E. (1997) Temporal low-order statistics of natural sounds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 9 : 27–33. MIT Press
  33. ^ Nelken I., Rotman Y., Bar Yosef O. (1999) Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds. Nature 397: 154–157. doi: 10.1038/16456
  34. ^ Schutz, M., Gillard, J. On the generalization of tones: A detailed exploration of non-speech auditory perception stimuli. Sci Rep 10, 9520 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63132-2
  35. ^ Plomp, R. (2002). The intelligent ear: On the nature of sound perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
  36. ^ a b c d Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0501_1
  37. ^ Neuhoff JG. Ecological Psychoacoustics. 1st ed. New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004
  38. ^ a b c Shafiro, V (2022). Environmental Sound Perception: Effects of Aging and Hearing Loss. In Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience, Springer New York
  39. ^ Pastore RE, Flint JD, Gaston JR, Solomon MJ (2008) Auditory event perception: the source-perception loop for posture in human gait. Percept Psychophys 70:13–29
  40. ^ Repp BH (1987) The sound of two hands clapping: an exploratory study. J Acoust Soc Am 81: 1100–1109
  41. ^ Jenkins JJ (1985) Acoustic information for objects, places and events. In: Warren WH, Shaw RE (eds) Persistence and change. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. pp 115-138
  42. ^ a b Truax B  (2001) Acoustic Communication, 2nd edn. Ablex Publishing
  43. ^ Warren WH, Verbrugge RR (1984) Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: a case study in ecological acoustics. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance 10(5): 704-12
  44. ^ Lemaitre G, Pyles JA, Halpern AR, Navolio N, Lehet M, Heller HM (2018) Who's that knocking at my door? Neural bases of sound source identification. Cerebral Cortex 28(3): 805–818 https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw397
  45. ^ McMullin MA, Kumar R, Higgins NC, Gygi B, Elhilali M, Snyder JS. Preliminary Evidence for Global Properties in Human Listeners During Natural Auditory Scene Perception. Open Mind (Camb). 2024 Mar 26;8:333-365. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00131.
  46. ^ Saint-Arnaud, N., and Popat, K. (1995). Analysis and synthesis of sound texture. Proceedings of AJCAI Workshop on Computational Auditory Scene Analysis, pp. 293–308.
  47. ^ McDermott, J. H., Schemitsch, M., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2013). Summary statistics in auditory perception. Nature neuroscience, 16(4), 493-498.
  48. ^ McWalter, R., & McDermott, J. H. (2018). Adaptive and selective time averaging of auditory scenes. Current Biology, 28(9), 1405-1418.
  49. ^ Hicks, J. M., & McDermott, J. H. (2024). Noise schemas aid hearing in noise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(47), e2408995121.
  50. ^ McWalter, R., & McDermott, J. H. (2019). Illusory sound texture reveals multi-second statistical completion in auditory scene analysis. Nature communications, 10(1), 5096.
  51. ^ Barlow, H. B. Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. Sensory communication217–234 (1961)
  52. ^ Simoncelli, E. P. & Olshausen, B. A. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annual review of neuroscience 24, 1193–1216 (2001)
  53. ^ Gervain, J. & Geffen, M. N. Efficient Neural Coding in Auditory and Speech Perception. Trends Neurosci 42, 56–65 (2019)
  54. ^ a b Geffen, M. N., Gervain, J., Werker, J. F. & Magnasco, M. O. Auditory perception of self-similarity in water sounds. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 5, 15 (2011)
  55. ^ a b Gervain, J., Werker, J. F., Black, A. & Geffen, M. N. The neural correlates of processing scale-invariant environmental sounds at birth. NeuroImage 133, 144–150 (2016)
  56. ^ Russell, J.A., A circumplex model of affect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980. 39(6): p. 1161 - 1178
  57. ^ Watson, C.S. and D.C. Foyle, Central factors in the discrimination and identification of complex sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1985. 78: p. 375-380
  58. ^ Russell, J.A. and A. Mehrabian, Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 1977. 11(3): p. 273-294
  59. ^ Bradley, M.M. and P.J. Lang, Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1994. 25(1): p. 49-59
  60. ^ Bradley, M.M. and P.J. Lang, Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli.Psychophysiology, 2000. 37(02): p. 204-215
  61. ^ Andringa, T.C. and J.J.L. Lanser, How pleasant sounds promote and annoying sounds impede health: A cognitive approach.International journal of environmental research and public health, 2013. 10(4): p. 1439-1461
  62. ^ Baumeister, R.F., et al., Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 2001. 5(4): p. 323-370
  63. ^ Kensinger, E.A., Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 2009. 1(2): p. 99-113
  64. ^ Sandstrom, G.M. and F.A. Russo, Music hath charms: the effects of valence and arousal on recovery following an acute stressor. Music and Medicine, 2010. 2(3): p. 137-143
  65. ^ Alvarsson, J.J., S. Wiens, and M.E. Nilsson, Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2010. 7(3): p. 1036-1046
  66. ^ Fredrickson, B.L., The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.American Psychologist, 2001. 56(3): p. 218 - 226
  67. ^ a b Picou, E.M., How hearing loss and age affect emotional responses to nonspeech sounds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2016. 59(5): p. 1233 - 1246
  68. ^ a b c Picou, E.M., et al., Effects of increasing the overall level or fitting hearing aids on emotional responses to sounds. Trends in Hearing, 2021. 25: p. 1-13
  69. ^ Marcrum, S.C., L. Rakita, and E.M. Picou, Emotional responses to sound for people with hearing loss: Effects of sound category.Emotion, in review
  70. ^ Frumkin, H., et al., Nature contact and human health: a research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2017. 125(7): p. 075001
  71. ^ Francis, C.D., et al., Acoustic environments matter: synergistic benefits to humans and ecological communities.Journal of Environmental Management, 2017. 203(Part 1): p. 245-254
  72. ^ Katcher, A. and G. Wilkins, Dialogue with animals: its nature and culture, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson, Editors. 1993, Island Press: Washington, DC
  73. ^ Kaplan, S., The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1995. 15(3): p. 169-182
  74. ^ Ulrich, R.S., et al., Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1991. 11(3): p. 201-230
  75. ^ a b c Buxton, R.T., et al., A synthesis of health benefits of natural sounds and their distribution in national parks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021. 118(14): p. e2013097118
  76. ^ Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Fiebig, A., Sisneros, J. A., Popper, A. N., & Fay, R. R. (Eds.). (2023). Soundscapes: Humans and their acoustic environment. Springer
  77. ^ Kang, J., & Schulte-Fortkamp, B. (Eds.). (2016). Soundscape and the built environment(Vol. 525). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC press
  78. ^ a b International Organization for Standardization. (2014). ISO 12913-1:2014 Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework. Geneva: ISO
  79. ^ Aletta, F., Oberman, T., & Kang, J. (2018). Associations between positive health-related effects and soundscapes perceptual constructs: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2392
  80. ^ Ratcliffe, E. (2021). Sound and soundscape in restorative natural environments: A narrative literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 570563
  81. ^ Payne, S. R. (2013). The production of a perceived restorativeness soundscape scale. Applied Acoustics, 74(2), 255-263
  82. ^ Aletta, F., Oberman, T., Mitchell, A., Erfanian, M., & Kang, J. (2023). Soundscape experience of public spaces in different world regions: A comparison between the European and Chinese contexts via a large-scale on-site survey. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 154(3), 1710-1734
  83. ^ International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 2: Data collection and reporting requirements. Geneva: ISO
  84. ^ International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 3: Data analysis.Geneva: ISO
  85. ^ Mitchell, A., Oberman, T., Aletta, F., Kachlicka, M., Lionello, M., Erfanian, M., & Kang, J. (2021). Investigating urban soundscapes of the COVID-19 lockdown: A predictive soundscape modeling approach. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 150(6), 4474-4488
  86. ^ Aletta, F., Kang, J., & Axelsson, Ö. (2016). Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 149, 65-74
  87. ^ Ballas JA, Barnes ME (1988) Everyday sound perception and aging. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting 32(3): 194–197
  88. ^ Harris MS, Boyce L, Pisoni DB, Shafiro V, Moberly AC (2017). The relationship between environmental sound awareness and speech recognition skills in experienced cochlear implant users. Otology & Neurotology 38(9):e308-e314 doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001514
  89. ^ Shafiro, V., Hebb, M., Walker, C., Hsiao, Y., Brown, K., Sheft, S., Li, Y., Vasil, K., Moberly, A., (2020). Development of the Basic Auditory Skills Evaluation (BASE) battery for online testing of cochlear implant listeners. American Journal of Audiology 29(3S), 577-590
  90. ^ Dick F, Krishna S, Leech R, Saygin AP (2016). Environmental sounds. In: Hickok G, Small SL (ed) Neurobiology of language. Academic Press, pp 1121-1138 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0419-05.2005
  91. ^ Gygi B, Shafiro V (2013) Auditory and cognitive effects of aging on perception of environmental sounds in natural auditory scenes [published correction appears in J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Dec;56(6):1934]. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56(5):1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0283)
  92. ^ Shafiro V, Sheft S, Norris M, Spanos G, Radasevich K, Formsma P, et al. (2016) Toward a Nonspeech Test of Auditory Cognition: Semantic Context Effects in Environmental Sound Identification in Adults of Varying Age and Hearing Abilities. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0167030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167030
  93. ^ Woods D. L., Arbogast T., Doss Z., Younus M., Herron T.J., Yund W.E. (2015). Aided and unaided speech perception by older hearing impaired listeners. PLoS One 10(3): e0114922
  94. ^ Ellis RJ, Molander P, Rönnberg J, Lyxell B, Andersson G, Lunner T (2016). Predicting Speech-in-Noise Recognition From Performance on the Trail Making Test: Results From a Large-Scale Internet Study. Ear Hear; 37(1):73-9
  95. ^ Kuk F, Slugocki C, Korhonen P. (2020). Using the Repeat-Recall Test to Examine Factors Affecting Context Use. J Am Acad Audiol. 31(10):771-780
  96. ^ Zaar, J., Simonsen L. B., Sanchez-Lopez, R., and Laugesen, S. (2023): The Audible Contrast Threshold (ACT™) test: a clinical spectro-temporal modulation detection test. medRxiv
  97. ^ World Health Organization. (2015). Deafness and hearing loss Fact sheet N°300
  98. ^ Smeds K., Gotowiec S., Wolters F., Herrlin P., Larsson J., Dahlquist M. (2020). Selecting scenarios for hearing-related laboratory testing. Ear Hear. 41(Suppl 1), 20S–30S
  99. ^ Lelic D., Parker D., Herrlin P., Wolters F., Smeds K. (2023).Focusing on positive listening experiences improves hearing aid outcomes in experienced hearing aid users. Int J Audiol. 1-11
  100. ^ Lelic D., Nielsen L.L.A., Pedersen A.K., Neher, T. (2024). "Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users." Trends in Hearing. In Press
  101. ^ Lelic, D., Wolters, F., Herrlin, P., Smeds, K. (2022). Assessment of Hearing-Related Lifestyle Based on the Common Sound Scenarios Framework. American Journal of Audiology, 31, 1299-1311
  102. ^ Shafiro, Valeriy PhD; Harris, Michael S. MD; Moberly, Aaron C. MD. Daily Sound Awareness of CI Users. The Hearing Journal 70(5):p 8-9, May 2017. | DOI: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000516774.15669.a9
  103. ^ Lelic D, Picou E, Shafiro V, Lorenzi C. Sounds of Nature and Hearing Loss: A Call to Action. Ear Hear. 2024 Nov 7. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001601
  104. ^ Tyler R.S., & Kelsay D. (1990). Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. American Journal of Otology, 11(4), 282‐289
  105. ^ Zhao F., Stephens S.D., Sim S.W., & Meredith R. (1997). The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences, 22(3), 254‐259. https://doi.org/:10.1046/j.1365-2273.1997.00036.x
  106. ^ Parkinson A.J., Parkinson W.S., Tyler R.S., Lowder M.W., & Gantz B.J. (1998). Speech perception performance in experienced cochlear-implant patients receiving the SPEAK processing strategy in the Nucleus Spectra-22 cochlear implant. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 41(5), 1073‐1087
  107. ^ McRackan T.R., Velozo C.A., Holcomb M.A., Camposeo E.L., Hatch J.L., Meyer T.A., Lambery P.R., Melvin C.L., & Dubno J.R. (2017). Use of adult patient focus groups to develop the initial item bank for a cochlear implant quality-of-life instrument. JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, 143(10), 975‐982. https://doi.org/:10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1182
  108. ^ McRackan T.R., Hand B.N., Velozo C.A., & Dubno J.R. (2019) Development of the cochlear implant quality of life item bank. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Ear & Hearing, 40(4):1016-1024
  109. ^ a b Shafiro V, Luzum N, Moberly AC, Harris MS. Perception of Environmental Sounds in Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review. Front Neurosci. 2022 Jan 10;15:788899. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.788899. PMID 35082595; PMCID: PMC8785216.
  110. ^ McMahon K.R., Moberly A.C., Shafiro V., & Harris M.S. (2018). Environmental sound awareness in experienced cochlear implant users and cochlear implant candidates. Otology & Neurotology, 12, 39(10), e964-e971
  111. ^ Looi, V., and Arnephy, J. (2010). Environmental sound perception of cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 11, 203–227. doi: 10.1002/cii.428
  112. ^ Ramsdell D.A. (1978). The psychology of the hard-of-hearing and the deafened adult. In H. Davis & S.R. Silverman (Eds.), Hearing and deafness (pp. 499–510). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
  113. ^ National Institutes of Health. (1995) Cochlear implants in adults and children. NIH Consensus Statement, 15-17, 13(12), 1-30
  114. ^ Allen, P.D. and D.A. Eddins, Presbycusis phenotypes form a heterogeneous continuum when ordered by degree and configuration of hearing loss. Hearing Research, 2010. 264(1): p. 10-20
  115. ^ Buono, G.H., et al., Loss of high-or low-frequency audibility can partially explain effects of hearing loss on emotional responses to non-speech sounds. Hearing Research, 2021. 401: p. 108153
  116. ^ Tawdrous, M., et al., Emotional responses to non-speech sounds for hearing-aid and bimodal cochlear-implant listeners.Trends in Hearing, 2022. 26: p. 1-17
  117. ^ Picou, E.M. and W. Martens, Modulation Spectral Feature Analysis and Valence of Non-Speech Sounds, in Scientific and Technical Meeting of the American Auditory Society. 2024: Scottsdale, AZ
  118. ^ Picou, E. and W. Martens, Hearing aid processing affects acoustic features important for emotional responses to sounds.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2023. 154(4_supplement): p. A113-A113
  119. ^ Lomolino, M. V., Pijanowski, B. C., & Gasc, A. (2015). The silence of biogeography. Journal of Biogeography 42, 1187-1196
  120. ^ Gasc, A., Anso, J., Sueur, J., Jourdan, H., & Desutter-Grandcolas, L. (2018). Cricket calling communities as an indicator of the invasive ant Wasmannia auropunctata in an insular biodiversity hotspot. Biological Invasions 20, 1099-1111
  121. ^ Gasc, A., Gottesman, B. L., Francomano, D., Jung, J., Durham, M., Mateljak, J., & Pijanowski, B. C. (2018b).Soundscapes reveal disturbance impacts : biophonic response to wildfire in the Sonoran Desert Sky Islands. Landscape Ecology 33, 1399-1415
  122. ^ Sourdril A., Welch-Devine M., Andrieu E., Bélaïdi N. (2017) Do April showers bring May flowers? Knowledge and perceptions of local biodiversity influencing understanding of global environmental change. A presentation of the PIAF project. Natures Sciences Sociétés 25 : 56–62. doi : 10.1051/nss/2017009
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Human_auditory_ecology&oldid=1262024886"