In an environment saturated with concurrent acoustic energy, the human brain performs the astonishing feat of decomposing a chaotic mixture of superimposed sound waves into discrete, identifiable entities. An auditory object represents the internal perceptual representation of an acoustic event or sound-emitting source, forged through complex neurocomputational mechanisms of grouping, segregation, and feature binding. Understanding how the central nervous system constructs auditory objects illuminates not only the foundations of speech perception and musical appreciation, but also the broader computational architecture of human sensory awareness.
Auditory Object
1. Concise Definition
An auditory object is a computational and perceptual construct corresponding to an acoustic entity or sound-emitting event that is segregated from the ambient acoustic background and experienced as a coherent, unified whole. It reflects the central nervous system’s synthesis of acoustic waveforms into a distinct mental representation endowed with identifiable physical or semantic attributes, such as pitch, timbre, spatial location, and temporal progression. Rather than passively registering raw acoustic frequencies, the brain organizes sound mixtures into bounded perceptual units that correspond to external physical sources in the environment.
In cognitive neuroscience and psychoacoustics, the construct of an auditory object operates as the sonic counterpart to a visual object. Where a visual object possesses spatial boundaries, luminance, color, and texture, an auditory object is delineated by temporal boundaries, spectral cohesion, harmonic relationships, and common spectrotemporal trajectories. The formation of an auditory object enables an organism to track a single speaker in a crowded room, identify the approaching footsteps of a predator, or follow a solitary melodic line within a complex orchestral symphonic texture.
Crucially, an auditory object is not identical to the physical sound wave itself; rather, it is a neurobiological inference. The pressure waves arriving at the tympanic membrane are physically mixed and summed into a single complex oscillation. The auditory object is the brain’s hypothetical model of the distal source that generated a subset of those acoustic vibrations, demonstrating that objecthood in hearing is an active perceptual achievement rather than a direct sensory readout.
2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin
The term auditory object is a modern nominal syntagma combining elements from Classical Latin and twentieth-century perceptual psychology. The adjective auditory derives from the Latin audītōrius, meaning “pertaining to hearing or listening,” which stems from the past participle stem of audīre (“to hear”) combined with the adjectival suffix -tōrius. Its historical trajectory entered Middle English through Old French and Late Latin, becoming established in physiological anatomical texts during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to designate the structures of hearing, such as the auditory nerve.
The noun object originates from the Medieval Latin obiectum, signifying “a thing presented to the sight or mind,” derived substantively from the neuter past participle of the Classical Latin verb obiciō (compounded from ob-, meaning “before, toward, or against,” and iacere, meaning “to throw”). Historically, philosophical discourse from Scholasticism through Immanuel Kant utilized “object” to denote that toward which cognitive or mental activity is directed. The integration of “object” into perceptual psychology was predominantly visual throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anchored by Gestalt psychology.
The explicit phrase “auditory object” began surfacing in physiological and psychoacoustic literature in the mid-to-late twentieth century, as researchers sought an acoustic analogue to visual figure-ground segmentation. The conceptual framework was formalized definitively by Canadian cognitive psychologist Albert Bregman in his landmark 1990 monograph Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound, which permanently cemented the term within modern sensory science and neurobiology.
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form
The term is pronounced in standard International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) notation as:
- Received Pronunciation (British English): /ˈɔː.dɪ.tər.i ˈɒb.dʒɛkt/ (noun) or /ˈɔː.dɪ.tər.i ˈɒb.dʒɪkt/
- General American English: /ˈɔː.də.tɔːr.i ˈɑːb.dʒɛkt/
Grammatically, auditory object functions as a compound countable noun phrase. Its plural form is auditory objects. When modifying subsequent nouns, it functions attributively or within hyphenated compound constructions (e.g., “auditory-object formation,” “auditory object boundary analysis”). Derivative terms frequently employed in cognitive psychoacoustics include auditory objecthood (noun, designating the state or quality of being perceived as an auditory object) and auditory objectification (noun, designating the cognitive or computational process of carving an acoustic scene into discrete objects).
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation
To comprehend the scope of an auditory object, one must confront the profound inverse problem executed by the auditory modality. In vision, the sensory epithelium—the retina—maintains an explicit two-dimensional spatial map of the environment, where adjacent photoreceptors receive photons from adjacent spatial locations. In hearing, however, the cochlea is organized tonotopically, not spatiotopically. It separates sound based on mechanical frequency decomposition along the basilar membrane. When multiple sound sources emit vibrations simultaneously (for example, a dog barking, a violin playing, and a person speaking), their acoustic pressure waveforms superimpose in the air. The ear receives a single, highly convoluted composite waveform.
From this single mechanical disturbance, the brain must determine how many sound sources exist, what each source is, and where each source is located. The mental representation that results from grouping related acoustic components together while segregating them from competing energy constitutes an auditory object. This process mirrors the visual binding problem: just as the visual system must bind color, orientation, motion, and depth into a singular perceptual entity (such as a red rolling ball), the auditory system must bind frequency components, harmonic structures, temporal modulations, and spatial cues into a singular perceptual entity (such as a human vocal utterance).
An auditory object possesses both temporal extent and internal structural dynamics. Unlike physical objects, which often exhibit static spatial permanence, auditory objects are fundamentally temporal processes; they unfold over time. An auditory object can be brief and punctate, such as the snap of a twig, or long and evolving, such as an extended spoken monologue or a melodic musical phrase. Despite temporal variations, an auditory object maintains perceptual constancy: a listener recognizes their friend’s voice whether they whisper, yell, or speak in a resonant concert hall, indicating that the mental model of the object transcends instantaneous acoustic fluctuations.
The boundaries of an auditory object are defined through continuous, real-time computational inference. Sensory features that share common properties are grouped according to heuristic principles, while discordant features are rejected and segregated into competing auditory objects or relegated to the ambient perceptual background (auditory ground). Consequently, auditory object formation is both a data-driven (bottom-up) sensory process and an experience-dependent (top-down) cognitive process, continually updating internal hypotheses against sensory evidence.
5. Historical Development
The intellectual lineage of the auditory object traces back to nineteenth-century sensory physiology. Hermann von Helmholtz, in his pioneering 1863 work Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik (On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music), examined how the ear decomposes complex periodic waves into constituent sinusoidal harmonics. Helmholtz recognized that although the inner ear acts as a Fourier analyzer, conscious awareness rarely perceives isolated sinusoidal tones; rather, human listeners perceive a unified “timbre” or vocal character, suggesting an unconscious synthetic process operating within sensory perception.
In the early twentieth century, Gestalt psychologists such as Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, and Kurt Koffka established fundamental principles of perceptual organization, including proximity, similarity, good continuation, and common fate. Although the Gestalt school focused primarily on visual patterns, Wertheimer noted that identical rules appeared to govern musical rhythm and melodic phrasing. However, a rigorous mechanistic translation of Gestalt theory into auditory science languished for several decades due to technological limitations in synthesizing and controlling complex acoustic stimuli.
The critical paradigm shift occurred in the mid-twentieth century with Colin Cherry’s formulation of the “cocktail party problem” in 1953. Cherry investigated how human listeners could track a single conversational thread amidst a cacophony of competing voices. This question spurred intensive research into selective attention by figures like Donald Broadbent and Anne Treisman, yet the underlying perceptual representation itself—what exactly attention was selecting—remained ambiguous.
In 1990, Albert S. Bregman published Auditory Scene Analysis, providing the overarching theoretical architecture for modern psychoacoustics. Bregman introduced the concepts of “auditory streams” and “auditory objects,” illustrating that auditory scene analysis (ASA) operates through two distinct computational phases: primitive (innate, pre-attentive acoustic segregation) and schema-driven (learned, knowledge-based, and top-down). Following Bregman’s milestone, the advent of functional neuroimaging (fMRI, magnetoencephalography [MEG], and electroencephalography [EEG]) and single-unit neurophysiology in animal models during the late 1990s and 2000s allowed researchers, including Timothy D. Griffiths and Roy D. Patterson, to isolate the neural substrates of auditory object processing in the superior temporal gyrus and auditory cortex.
6. Theoretical Foundations
The conceptualization of auditory objects rests upon three interconnected theoretical frameworks: Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA), Ecological Acoustics, and Predictive Processing / Bayesian Brain theories.
Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA): Formulated by Bregman, ASA posits that the auditory system mimics Gestalt grouping principles along the dimensions of time and frequency. ASA distinguishes between simultaneous grouping (integrating concurrent frequency components at a single slice of time into a unified timbre or chord) and sequential grouping (linking successive acoustic events across time into a coherent auditory stream, such as a musical melody or spoken sentence). Within ASA, the auditory object is the perceptual outcome of successful simultaneous and sequential integration.
Ecological Acoustics: Rooted in James J. Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception and championed in audition by William Gaver, this theory posits that organisms do not perceive abstract acoustic parameters such as frequency, amplitude, or phase. Instead, organisms directly perceive distal physical events occurring in the ecology: “a door slamming,” “water pouring,” or “metal scraping on concrete.” Under this perspective, an auditory object is essentially the perceptual manifestation of an ecological mechanical event, optimized by evolution to inform the organism about environmental states and affordances.
Predictive Coding and Bayesian Inference: Modern cognitive neuroscience increasingly interprets auditory object formation through the lens of predictive processing. According to this framework, advanced by Karl Friston, Risto Näätänen, and István Winkler, the brain maintains internal generative models of the world. Rather than building objects purely from bottom-up peripheral input, higher cortical areas send descending predictions to early auditory regions regarding anticipated spectrotemporal patterns. An auditory object is conceptualized as a stable, error-minimized Bayesian hypothesis that accounts for incoming sensory inputs, resolving ambiguous acoustic mixtures by matching them against probabilistic expectations derived from prior experience.
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions
Auditory objects can be categorized and analyzed through several distinct structural components and dimensions that govern their perceptual genesis:
- Primitive vs. Schema-Driven Objects: Primitive objects form automatically via hardwired, bottom-up neural filtering based on acoustic regularities (e.g., common onset). Schema-driven objects rely on acquired cognitive templates, such as language phonology, familiar voices, or musical idioms, which actively extract patterns from ambiguous or fragmented acoustic input.
- Simultaneous Spectral Cohesion: The instantaneous binding of discrete frequency components. This relies predominantly on harmonicity (frequencies that are integer multiples of a common fundamental frequency group together) and common onset/offset synchrony (frequencies starting or ending within milliseconds of each other are attributed to the same physical object).
- Sequential Temporal Continuity: The longitudinal tracking of an acoustic stream across time. Factors facilitating sequential grouping include pitch proximity (notes close in pitch are perceived as coming from one object), temporal proximity (rapidly presented sounds coalesce), and smooth spectral transitions.
- Spatial Localization Coordinates: Cues derived from binaural processing, including Interaural Time Differences (ITD) and Interaural Level Differences (ILD), as well as monaural spectral pinna notches. While spatial cues help resolve ambiguity, spectral and temporal cues frequently dominate over spatial separation in establishing auditory object identity.
- Timbral Signature: The multidimensional spectral envelope and temporal envelope (attack, decay, sustain, release) that establish the source identity of the object (e.g., distinguishing an oboe from a clarinet playing the exact same pitch and loudness).
- Static vs. Dynamic Auditory Objects: Static objects maintain stable acoustic profiles over time (e.g., the steady drone of a transformer), whereas dynamic objects exhibit intricate internal modulation, trajectories, and transformations while maintaining perceptual identity (e.g., human speech with continuous formant transitions).
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases
To grasp auditory objects in everyday ecology, consider concrete scenarios where the auditory system extracts meaning from chaos:
The Cocktail Party Phenomenon: Imagine standing in a crowded banquet room. Dozens of people are speaking simultaneously, glassware is clinking, background jazz is playing, and ventilation systems are humming. The mechanical sound wave entering the ear canal is a completely entangled compound wave. Yet, an individual listener can effortlessly focus on a single companion’s voice. That voice is experienced as a distinct auditory object, characterized by a specific fundamental frequency (pitch), vocal tract resonance (timbre), and spatial trajectory, while all other acoustic information recedes into a unified, undifferentiated background object (auditory ground).
Musical Polyphony and Streaming: In a Baroque fugue composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, a single organ or harpsichord plays several independent melodic lines at once. Through the alternation of registers and rhythmic contours, the listener does not experience an undifferentiated wall of notes; instead, the brain segregates the physical sound into two, three, or four concurrent auditory objects (streams), allowing the listener to consciously shift attention among the soprano, alto, tenor, and bass lines.
The Phonemic Restoration Illusion: If a brief segment of a spoken sentence is deleted and replaced with a burst of loud white noise, listeners do not hear a broken word; rather, they report hearing the spoken sentence completely intact, with the noise co-occurring on a separate perceptual plane. Here, the brain’s top-down schemas maintain the integrity of the linguistic auditory object, restoring missing sensory evidence because the generative model predicts that vocal tracts do not instantaneously vanish and reappear.
9. Measurement & Assessment
Because auditory objects are mental constructs rather than physical entities, assessing their formation and operational parameters requires specialized psychoacoustic and neuroimaging methodologies:
Auditory Streaming Paradigms: The standard psychophysical paradigm involves presenting repeating sequences of alternating tones, such as “ABA-ABA-” patterns, where “A” and “B” represent pure tones of differing frequencies separated by silent intervals. By manipulating the frequency separation (Δf) and the presentation rate, experimenters measure the threshold at which listeners switch from perceiving a single, galloping auditory object (coherence) to perceiving two separate, concurrent streams (fission or segregation).
Mismatch Negativity (MMN): In neurophysiology, the Mismatch Negativity event-related potential (ERP), recorded via EEG or MEG, serves as an objective electrophysiological biomarker of auditory object processing. Occurring between 150 and 250 milliseconds after an unexpected deviant stimulus embedded within a stream of regular standard stimuli, the MMN demonstrates that the brain has encoded an internal representation of the standard auditory regularities. Importantly, MMN can be elicited even when participants are completely unconscious, sedated, or performing an unrelated visual task, confirming the pre-attentive nature of early auditory object construction.
Functional Neuroimaging (fMRI): Cortical substrates of auditory object processing are evaluated by contrasting blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses to stimuli with identical energy spectra but differing perceptual organization (e.g., stimuli perceived as either one or two streams). Studies demonstrate that while primary auditory cortex (A1; Heschl’s gyrus) maps low-level tonotopic features, non-primary regions, specifically the planum temporale and the superior temporal sulcus (STS), reflect categorical auditory object identity.
10. Applications & Practical Significance
The construct of the auditory object is foundational across numerous scientific, clinical, and technological domains:
Audiology and Hearing Assistive Devices: Traditional hearing aids amplify sound indiscriminately, boosting both the target speaker and ambient background noise, which frequently overwhelms the user. Modern digital hearing aids and cochlear implant processors increasingly incorporate computational algorithms inspired by auditory scene analysis. By identifying spectral coherence and onset synchrony, advanced digital signal processors isolate target auditory objects from background noise, selectively enhancing speech intelligibility for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss.
Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and Machine Listening: In artificial intelligence, computational auditory scene analysis (CASA) attempts to replicate human auditory object parsing. Traditional ASR models fail dramatically in noisy, reverberant environments. Integrating deep learning architectures that segment acoustic scenes into discrete auditory objects prior to linguistic decoding has vastly improved AI voice assistants, surveillance acoustic monitoring, and automated medical transcription.
Spatial Audio, Virtual Reality (VR), and Acoustic Architecture: In immersive media and game design, sound designers manipulate head-related transfer functions (HRTFs), reverberation profiles, and dynamic filtering to construct robust, spatially localized auditory objects. Doing so allows virtual environments to feel physically authentic, anchoring the user’s spatial immersion through realistic auditory perceptual cues.
Neurological and Psychiatric Diagnostics: Impairments in auditory object formation and stream segregation are hallmarks of various clinical conditions. Individuals with Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) often exhibit normal audiometric pure-tone thresholds but cannot form auditory objects within complex noise. Furthermore, abnormalities in the MMN response and auditory streaming paradigms are documented in schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders, pointing to disruptions in sensory predictive coding and cortical feature binding.
11. Research & Empirical Evidence
Decades of neurobiological and behavioral experimentation have established empirical validation for auditory object representations within the primate nervous system.
In a seminal paper, Timothy D. Griffiths and Jason D. Warren (2004) synthesized extensive neuroimaging evidence to propose a cortical framework for auditory object analysis. They demonstrated that while primary auditory areas in Heschl’s gyrus process instantaneous spectrotemporal acoustics, the human planum temporale acts as a “computational hub” that groups these features into auditory objects, which are subsequently routed along dual processing streams: an anterior “what” pathway (for object identification and semantic decoding) extending along the temporal lobe, and a posterior “where/how” pathway extending into the parietal cortex (for spatial localization and sensorimotor integration).
Single-unit electrophysiological recordings in non-human primates, pioneered by researchers such as Mitchell Steinschneider and later refined by Jennifer Bizley and Yale Cohen (2013), have provided cellular-level evidence. Neurons in primary and secondary auditory cortices display receptive field plasticity based on attention; when an animal attends to a specific auditory stream within a mixture, cortical firing patterns selectively synchronize with the spectrotemporal envelope of the attended auditory object, effectively filtering out the neural representation of unattended acoustic distractors.
Further empirical validation originates from the work of Shihab Shamma and colleagues (2011), who utilized psychoacoustics and computational modeling to prove that temporal coherence is the overarching principle binding disparate sensory features into an auditory object. When different frequency channels fluctuate together in time (showing coherent amplitude modulation), cortical ensembles naturally bind them into a single auditory object, illustrating the biological implementation of the Gestalt principle of common fate.
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations
While the low-level, primitive mechanisms of auditory object formation (such as harmonicity and onset synchrony) are biologically universal and determined by mammalian cochlear and brainstem architecture, schema-driven auditory object processing exhibits substantial cultural plasticity.
Linguistic Influences: Native language exposure profoundly shapes auditory object segmentation. Native speakers of tonal languages (such as Mandarin or Yoruba) demonstrate heightened neural sensitivity to pitch contours and microtonal variations, categorizing rapid fundamental frequency fluctuations into distinct semantic auditory objects with higher resolution than speakers of non-tonal languages. Similarly, categorical perception of phonemes demonstrates that what is perceived as two distinct auditory objects in one culture (e.g., the /r/ and /l/ phonemes in English) may be integrated into a singular phonetic object category by native speakers of other languages, such as Japanese.
Musical Systems and Auditory Training: Musical traditions cultivate specific frameworks for auditory object binding. Western classical music frequently encourages listeners to parse polyphony into distinct, harmonically related lines. In contrast, musical cultures utilizing microtonal divisions (such as Arabic maqam or Indian raga traditions) or intricate timbral fusion (such as Javanese gamelan) train the auditory cognitive apparatus to construct auditory objects based on subtle micro-intervals, continuous pitch glides, and complex inharmonic bell spectra that untrained Western listeners frequently perceive as ambiguous or undifferentiated noise.
Acoustic Ecology: Indigenous populations residing in dense forest or jungle environments (such as the Amazon basin or the Congo basin) navigate environments devoid of long-distance visual sightlines. Cross-cultural sensory ecology indicates that individuals in these acoustic environments develop acute, fine-grained schemas for biological auditory objects, isolating distinct bird species, insects, and animal movements within dense ambient natural noise with speeds and accuracies vastly exceeding those of urban populations.
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations
Despite its widespread utility, the concept of the “auditory object” is the subject of ongoing theoretical disputes within psychoacoustics and the philosophy of perception:
The Spatial vs. Temporal Debate: A primary critique, historically voiced by philosophers such as P. F. Strawson and contemporary perception theorists, questions whether hearing can possess genuine “objects” in the philosophical sense. Visual objects occupy bounded, contiguous spatial regions and possess permanence: they continue to exist even when unobserved. Auditory entities, conversely, are transient, dynamic temporal events that dissipate into nothingness. Critics argue that calling a sound an “object” is an unwarranted visual metaphor; sound should instead be categorized as an event or an acoustic process rather than an object.
Locus of Selection: Pre-Attentive vs. Attention-Dependent: A long-standing controversy divides auditory scientists regarding when an auditory object becomes fully formed. Bregman’s classical model posited that primitive auditory objects are formed completely pre-attentively, with attention merely choosing which pre-formed object to bring into conscious focus. However, recent neurophysiological evidence indicates that attention might be mandatory for the final binding of disparate acoustic features into a coherent object, suggesting that unattended acoustic energy may remain in a loose, unbound state of proto-objects.
Continuity vs. Discreteness: In visual perception, objects have clear physical edges. In audition, sound waves often bleed into one another, overlap in frequency, and blend continuously through acoustic reverberation. Determining the exact mathematical and perceptual boundaries of where one auditory object ends and another begins remains notoriously difficult, presenting significant challenges for computational algorithms attempting to mimic human scene analysis.
14. Related Terms & Distinctions
To avoid conceptual conflation, the auditory object must be distinguished from related psychoacoustic constructs:
- Auditory Object vs. Auditory Stream: An auditory stream is the temporal progression or sequence of related auditory events over an extended duration (e.g., a continuous voice talking, or a melody). An auditory object is the broader perceptual unit at any given moment or over a bounded duration, encompassing both the instantaneous timbral entity and its longitudinal stream identity. In many contexts, “stream” refers specifically to the temporal coherence of sequential sounds, while “object” encompasses both simultaneous and sequential integration.
- Auditory Object vs. Acoustic Source: An acoustic source is the physical, real-world entity that vibrates (e.g., the wooden body of a violin, a vocal tract, a car engine). An auditory object is the internal, subjective perceptual representation synthesized by the listener’s nervous system. The two do not always correlate perfectly; for example, auditory illusions can produce the perception of an auditory object where no physical source exists, or conversely, fail to separate two overlapping physical sources.
- Auditory Object vs. Auditory Scene: The auditory scene is the total aggregate of all acoustic energy arriving at the ears from the entire environment at any given time. The auditory scene is the complete raw sensory landscape, which the brain dissects into individual auditory objects and an ambient background.
- Auditory Object vs. Timbre: Timbre is an acoustic perceptual attribute—the qualitative color or tone of a sound (often defined by its spectral envelope). Timbre is a constituent feature of an auditory object that provides the acoustic signature enabling its identification, but timbre alone does not constitute an object.
15. Summary & Key Takeaways
The auditory object is the fundamental currency of auditory cognition. It bridges the divide between physical environmental mechanics and conscious subjective awareness, enabling organisms to navigate, communicate, and survive within acoustically chaotic habitats.
- Core Identity: An auditory object is an internal computational representation of an acoustic event or source, segregated from background noise and experienced as a coherent entity.
- Dual Processing: Object formation relies on both primitive grouping mechanisms (hardwired, bottom-up cues such as harmonicity and common onset) and schema-driven processes (top-down, learned knowledge and predictive Bayesian inferences).
- Temporal Centrality: Unlike spatial visual objects, auditory objects are intrinsically temporal phenomena that unfold, evolve, and maintain perceptual constancy across time.
- Neural Architecture: Parsing begins in subcortical structures and primary auditory cortex, culminating in higher-order regions such as the planum temporale and superior temporal sulcus along distinct “what” and “where” processing streams.
- Technological and Clinical Impact: Understanding auditory objects drives advances in hearing aids, cochlear implants, speech recognition artificial intelligence, spatial audio systems, and the diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders.
Ultimately, the construction of an auditory object exemplifies the creative nature of the human brain. Hearing is not merely the passive mechanical registration of atmospheric vibrations, but an active, intelligent act of continuous computational synthesis, transmuting the physical chaos of sound into an ordered, intelligible, and meaningful perceptual world.
References
- Bizley, J. K., & Cohen, Y. E. (2013). The what, where and how of auditory-object perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(10), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3565
- Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1486.001.0001
- Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907229
- Griffiths, T. D., & Warren, J. D. (2004). What is an auditory object? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11), 887–892. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1538
- Shamma, S. A., Elhilali, M., & Micheyl, C. (2011). Temporal coherence and attention in auditory scene analysis. Trends in Neurosciences, 34(3), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2010.11.002