19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS

MADRID, 2-7 SEPTEMBER 2007

Perceiving Looming Sounds:

The Importance of Auditory Motion as a Sound Source Property

Neuhoff, John, G.
The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; jneuhoff@wooster.edu

ABSTRACT
One critically important environmental property of a sound source is its physical location in
space. The distance between a sound source and a listener is a critical factor shaping neural,
physiological, and behavioural responses to sound sources. Specifically, sound sources that are
approaching a listener (looming sources) initiate responses in neural populations that mediate
attention to auditory space, assignment of appropriate responses, and even motor planning in
response to looming sound sources. Analogous neural activity does not occur in response to
receding sound sources. Physiological responses such as heart rate and galvanic skin
response show similar differentiation between looming and receding sounds. Finally,
behavioural responses to looming sources indicate a perceptual bias to hear sound sources as
closer than actual and to underestimate the arrival time of a looming source. Taken together,
these findings indicate the environmental salience of looming sound sources and demonstrate
an important link between perception of a sound source and the potential to physically interact
with the source. These findings provide indirect evidence that suggests the perceptual
anisotropy in the perception of looming and receding sounds may be advantageous in
evolutionary terms.

PERCEIVING SOUND SOURCES AND SOUND SOURCE “PROPERTIES”

Because of the relatively sparse history of investigating the perception of sound source
properties, there is still little consensus over the precise terminology that should be used to
describe the perception of sound sources. For example, when describing a “sound”, some
researchers have developed entire theoretical paradigms around the term “auditory object” [1].
Others prefer the term “auditory event” to describe very similar auditory phenomena [2]. Still
others have taken a slightly different approach to defining auditory objects and grappled with the
very basic question “What is an auditory object?” [3]. Nonetheless, the intent of many recent
investigations into the perception of sound source properties has been to shift the traditional
focus on the perception of the acoustic characteristics of the sound per se (such as pitch and
loudness), to the perception of the physical properties of the object that is producing the sound
(such as weight, shape, or size [4]).

Sound source properties and spatial location

Much of the work on the perception of sound source properties stems from the now classic
papers by Gaver which proposed an innovative way of thinking about “what” and “how” we hear
[5, 6]. The thrust of Gaver’s work suggested that in everyday listening situations, people don’t
attend to “pitch” or “timbre”, or other acoustic properties of sound energy. Rather, they identify
sound sources and the physical properties of objects that are producing sound. Gaver
suggested that sound events could be divided into three main categories based on the physical
properties of the objects that created the sound- solid, liquid, or gas. More complex sounds
could be created by interactions between these main three categories.

Although the physical materials that make up a sound source are fundamental to the perception
of sound source properties, the location of the sound source relative to the listener is also a
crucial property of a sounding object. Any object, be it auditory or visual, must occur at a
location in space. Thus, spatial location is an inherent property of objects (or events). Generally
speaking, the closer a sound source is to a listener, the more salient and ecologically relevant
that source becomes. When sound sources are moving, those that are approaching a listener
(or looming) are generally treated with greater urgency than those that are receding.
LOOMING SOUND OBJECTS
A typical methodology that has been used to investigate the perception of looming sounds
requires subjects to estimate the arrival time of a sound source that is approaching the listening
point. Subjects are asked to press a key when they think that the sound source will have
reached the arrival position. A consistent finding in these “Time-to-Arrival” studies is that
listeners generally underestimate time-to-arrival, judging the source to have arrived sooner than
it actually does [7-11].

Guski [12] has suggested that this anticipatory bias reflects a characteristic of the auditory
system that allows for advanced warning of looming objects. He suggested that accurate time
to arrival estimation is not the function of auditory localization. Rather, the auditory system
provides input on a categorical judgment about whether there is time to direct the visual system
toward the looming source or whether evasive actions should be initiated by the motor system.
In essence, Guski suggested that this categorical decision about directing the visual system is
more important than precise auditory-time-to-arrival estimation. Neuhoff [13] further suggested
that the advanced warning provided by the auditory system might be rooted in an evolutionary
adaptation. If listeners perceive a looming sound source as closer than it actually is, then they
would have slightly more time than expected to prepare for the source’s arrival. This additional
preparation time might provide a selective advantage. Several lines of evidence have supported
this assertion.

Neural and physiological evidence

If Guski’s speculation about the auditory system providing input into a decision about whether
the listener has time to turn and look toward the looming object or must immediately initiate
evasive motor actions, then we might expect looming sounds to preferentially activate motor
planning areas in the brain. Recent neuroimaging work has borne out this prediction. When
listeners are presented with both looming and receding sounds, looming sounds preferentially
activate brain areas responsible for the perception of auditory space, stimulus discrimination
and assignments of required responses, and (most critically) the integration of perception with
motor planning [14] (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. The general linear contrast “looming versus receding” tones yields a neural network
comprising bilaterally the superior temporal sulci and the middle temporal gyri, the right
temporoparietal junction encompassing the inferior portion of the angular gyrus, the right motor
and lateral premotor cortices mainly on the right hemisphere, the left frontal operculum (From
Seiftitz, et al., 2002).

2
th
19 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS – ICA2007MADRID
More recent work has shown preferential neural, physiological, and behavioural orienting
responses to looming sounds over receding sounds. Physiological results showed orienting
responses in the form of differential changes in heart rate and skin conductance when
presented with looming and receding sounds [15] (See Figure 2). Similar behavioural orienting
responses have been shown with Rhesus monkeys [16]. From the perspective of perceiving
sound source properties, these data demonstrate the salience of looming sounds over
equivalent receding or stationary sound sources.

Figure 2. Orienting reflex (heart rate and skin conductance response, mean ± SEM) in
response to looming (open circles), receding (black circles), and constant (gray circles). *p<.05;
**p<.0005 (From Bach, et al., 2007).

Behavioural evidence
Most behavioural studies of the perception of looming objects have shown that listeners
underestimate time-to-arrival [7-11]. However, a direct comparison between looming and
receding sounds is necessary in order to provide evidence for a preferential perceptual status
for looming sounds. Neuhoff [17] presented listeners with both looming and receding sounds
from a moving loudspeaker in an open field environment. Both looming sounds and receding
sounds travelled a distance of 6 m and always stopped 6 m from the listener. After the
loudspeaker stopped moving, listeners made both verbal and blind walking estimates of the
loudspeaker’s terminal position. The results showed that despite equidistant terminal locations,
the looming sounds were perceived as significantly closer to the listener than the receding
sounds (See Figure 3). Thus, the typical underestimation found in auditory time-to-arrival
estimates may stem from looming sources being perceived as closer than they actually are and
closer than equivalent receding sources. From an evolutionary perspective perceiving a sound
source as closer than actual might provide a selective advantage. It would provide more time to
prepare for the arrival of the source, effectively functioning as the “advanced warning” system
proposed by Guski [12].

Other findings that reinforce this evolutionary hypothesis come from work examining the effect
of source trajectory on auditory time-to-arrival estimates. Schiff & Oldak [11] found that listeners
show a greater underestimation of arrival time when a sound source is on a collision path with
the listener than when the source is on a bypass course. Moreover, the underestimation of the
estimates increases as the trajectory angle of the source approaches a collision course. Similar
supporting evidence comes from studies that show that increasing the intensity of a source can

3
th
19 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS – ICA2007MADRID
cause listeners to underestimate its distance. However, similar decreases in intensity do not
cause overestimation of distance. [18].

Perceived terminal position of approaching and

receding sound sources
40
To ne
No ise

Distance from listener (ft.)

30

Actual terminal position

20

10

0
To w a rd Aw a y
Direction of travel
(with respect to listener)

Figure 3. Perceived terminal position of approaching (toward) and receding (away) sound
sources. Approaching sources are perceived as stopping closer than equidistant receding
sources. Tones are perceived as closer than equidistant noise. Distance estimates were made
by blind walking (From Neuhoff, 2001).

CONCLUSIONS

Any object or event must occur at a location in space. Thus, spatial location is an inherent
property of auditory objects and events. Behavioural, neurological and physiological evidence
all converges on the finding that looming sound sources are environmentally salient stimuli that
are preferentially allocated perceptual and attentional resources when compared with equivalent
stationary or receding sounds. Taken together, these findings indicate an important link
between perception of a sound source and the potential to physically interact with the source.
These findings provide indirect evidence that suggests the perceptual anisotropy in the
perception of looming and receding sounds may be advantageous in evolutionary terms.

References:

[1] D. Van Valkenburg and M. Kubovy, "From Gibson's fire to Gestalts: A bridge building theory of
perceptual objecthood," in Ecological Psychoacoustics, J. G. Neuhoff, Ed. San Diego, CA:
Elsevier, 2004, pp. 113-147.
[2] L. D. Rosenblum, "Perceiving articulatory events: lessons for an ecological psychoustics," in
Ecological Psychoacoustics, J. G. Neuhoff, Ed. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 2004, pp. 219-248.
[3] T. D. Griffiths and J. D. Warren, "What is an auditory object," Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol.
5, pp. 887-892, 2004.
[4] S. Lakatos, S. McAdams, and R. Causse, "The representation of auditory source characteristics:
Simple geometric form.," Perception & Psychophysics, vol. 59, pp. 1180-1190, 1997.
[5] W. W. Gaver, "How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics," Ecological
Psychology, vol. Vol 5, pp. 285-313, 1993.
[6] W. W. Gaver, "What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event
perception," Ecological Psychology, vol. Vol 5, pp. 1-29, 1993.
[7] L. D. Rosenblum, "Acoustical information for controlled collisions," in Contributions to
Psychological Acoustics VI: Results of the Sixth Oldenburg Symposium on Psychological
Acoustics, A. Shick, Ed. Oldenburg; Germany: BIS, 1993.
[8] L. D. Rosenblum, C. Carello, and R. E. Pastore, "Relative effectiveness of three stimulus
variables for locating a moving sound source," Perception, vol. 162, pp. 175-186, 1987.

4
th
19 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS – ICA2007MADRID
[9] L. D. Rosenblum, M. S. Gordon, and A. P. Wuestefeld, "Effects of performance feedback and
feedback withdrawal on auditory looming perception.," Ecological Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 273-
291, 2000.
[10] L. D. Rosenblum, A. P. Wuestefeld, and H. M. Saldana, "Auditory looming perception: Influences
on anticipatory judgments," Perception, vol. 22, pp. 1467-1482, 1993.
[11] W. Schiff and R. Oldak, "Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and
gender," Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, vol. 16, pp.
303-316, 1990.
[12] R. Guski, "Acoustic tau: An easy analogue to visual tau?," Ecological Psychology, vol. 4, pp. 189-
197, 1992.
[13] J. G. Neuhoff, "Perceptual bias for rising tones," Nature, vol. 395, pp. 123-124, 1998.
[14] E. Seifritz, J. G. Neuhoff, D. Bilecen, D. Scheffler, H. Mustovic, H. Schächinger, R. Elefante, and
F. Di Salle, "Neural processing auditory 'looming' in the human brain," Current Biology, vol. 12,
pp. 2147-2151, 2002.
[15] D. R. Bach, H. Schächinger, J. G. Neuhoff, F. Esposito, F. Di Salle, C. Lehmann, M. Herdener, K.
Scheffler, and E. Seifritz, "Rising sound intensity as an intrinsic warning cue," Cerebral Cortex,
pp. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm040, 2007.
[16] A. A. Ghazanfar, J. G. Neuhoff, and N. K. Logothetis, "Auditory looming perception in rhesus
monkeys," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol. 99, pp. 15755-15757,
2002.
[17] J. G. Neuhoff, "An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion," Ecological
Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 87-110, 2001.
[18] D. H. Ashmead, D. L. Davis, and A. Northington, "Contribution of listeners' approaching motion to
auditory distance perception," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, vol. Vol 21, pp. 239-256, 1995.

5
th
19 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS – ICA2007MADRID