• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Insights Into Sensory Integration, Sound Localization, and the Neuroscience of Thought

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
There's a difference between (involuntary) preference and (voluntarily) liking something.
Have you watched the video interview? I don’t believe that the studies included how the brain would react in “involuntary” situations.

Edit on Nov 12th.
Curvature provided more details on Nov 12 from the video to illustrate involuntary preference that I had missed. Please disregard my comment above.
 
Last edited:
I’m curious. Have you watched the full interview between Huberman and Dr Groh? Where did Dr Groh state that persons would always prefer a speaker or sound that was neutral and transparent?
I don't think I said anything of the sort. I was responding to @RexrothPigeon , who in turn was responding to what appeared to be your personal assertion that this research supports the notion that people can have preferences for different sound systems (which I assume is intended to mean different sounding sound systems).
 
I don't think I said anything of the sort. I was responding to @RexrothPigeon , who in turn was responding to what appeared to be your personal assertion that this research supports the notion that people can have preferences for different sound systems (which I assume is intended to mean different sounding sound systems).
Thanks for the clarification. I have posted a timestamp listing of sections from the actual interview above. If you have some time over the weekend take a look at the video on YouTube. As of 9:45pm tonight 57k persons to date have viewed the interview.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes you are absolutely correct. My comment however was directed towards consumers (not those carefully screened and trained for blind tests) who both view and listen to speakers (not blindly) before they are purchased and listening to them after. This comment can not be substantiated though by a recognized study or survey which provides an actual percentage. If we just looked at a sample of actual blind speaker tests posted on Audio Science and then looked at the actual sales, you would still see a wide range of speakers which did not win the blind tests still being purchased by consumers.

Dr. Grohs information on the brain processing included both visual and auditory and is supported by scientific studies.
lol ur using ai to write yr posts
 
Seems fine?

1762926442181.png



JSmith
 
lol ur using ai to write yr posts

They look very, very suspiciously like AI to me as well.

Not just in this thread, but in dozens of his posts over the last two years or so in other threads as well.

He even acknowledged, in June 2024, that he was using ChatGPT: "I have been using ChatGPT 4 to prepare correspondence such as birthday greetings, comments on Linkedin, and even an escalation email with a bank. I always consider the GPT response as a draft and will make changes."

See post here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...place-audio-writers.41443/page-9#post-1993802

@DonM can you clarify?

@RickS you might want to look into this.
 
I recently watched a fascinating discussion between Dr. Jennifer Groh (Duke University, Psychology & Neuroscience) and Andrew Huberman that offers deep insights into how our brains encode and integrate sights and sounds, and what this means for perception, attention, and cognition. The conversation goes far beyond typical pop neuroscience, drilling into topics directly relevant to audio science: dynamic sensory maps in the brain, how the superior colliculus merges auditory and visual space, mechanisms behind sound localization (including milliseconds-scale interaural time differences), and the profound role of physical environment and resonant frequencies in shaping perception. Dr. Groh also tackles what “thought” is from a neurobiological perspective, with practical advice on focus, brain state optimization, and the impact of sound environments—including music, noise, and silence—on our ability to learn and concentrate.

For anyone interested in technical audio reproduction, psychoacoustics, or the neuroscience behind how we experience sound (YouTube - safe link), this interview contains some of the clearest explanations I’ve encountered. As Audiophiles we tend to focus on the source of the sound, the amplifiers, the speakers and the effect of the room. Dr Groh during this interview explains how our brains interpret that sound. Feel free to add your own perspectives!
Now I finally understand why my wife prefers listening to music in our acoustically disastrous living room, blasting through the high fidelity 50-inch QLED TV speakers with living-colors (adding to the experience) while totally avoiding my meticulously treated, DSP-corrected mancave with all the state-of-the-art gear.

Or maybe it’s just the smell of me (and the mancave) messing it all up i will ask :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
lol ur using ai to write yr posts
For complicated topics such as this one (Huberman interview with Dr. Groh) I use various AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity & Gemini) to first research and analyze the material. Once I'm satisfied that there are no material errors, I will request one of the AI engines to prepare a draft response. I review the draft, edit it and then use the final version. Only some of my actual posts above are edited AI.
 
For complicated topics such as this one (Huberman interview with Dr. Groh) I use various AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity & Gemini) to first research and analyze the material. Once I'm satisfied that there are no material errors, I will request one of the AI engines to prepare a draft response. I review the draft, edit it and then use the final version. Only some of my actual posts above are edited AI.


As you i find Dr. Groh’s video quite complex and detailed. I started thinking about how her work might relate to that of Dr. Sean Olive an Dr. Floyd Tool. The connection seemed obvious, but I left it to ChatGPT to summarize it more (i hope) efficiently. Comment if not correct.

Chatgpt:
Comparison between Groh and Olive/Toole

Dr. Sean Olive
Led the research at Harman International that established the Harman target curve for headphones and loudspeakers.
Based on extensive listener preference tests, Olive identified the frequency response most listeners find natural and enjoyable.
His work focuses on empirical listener data to define ideal sound reproduction targets.

Floyd Toole
Made significant contributions to Harman’s acoustic measurement techniques and psychoacoustic analysis. His research focuses on perceptual preferences in sound reproduction, especially in loudspeaker evaluation.
While Toole helped develop the methodology and understanding of listener preferences, the specific headphone target curve is primarily credited to Olive.

Jennifer Groh
Studies the neural mechanisms by which the brain integrates and localizes auditory and visual information.
Her work is fundamental and biological: explaining how and why perception is shaped by multisensory integration, attention, and context.
Conclusion: perception is dynamic, context-dependent, and influenced by sensory input and cognition.

Relation / Synthesis
Olive and Toole describe what people collectively prefer (behavioral and measurement level).
Groh explains why and how the brain constructs those preferences (neural level).

Olive and Toole quantify the outcome of human perception; Groh investigates the mechanisms behind it


In short:
Olive’s research defines the Harman target curve as the result of listener preferences, supported by Toole’s broader measurement and perceptual work, while Groh explains the cause through neural processes.
Their work isn’t contradictory — it operates at different levels of the perception chain, from neurons to listening preference
 
They look very, very suspiciously like AI to me as well.

Not just in this thread, but in dozens of his posts over the last two years or so in other threads as well.

He even acknowledged, in June 2024, that he was using ChatGPT: "I have been using ChatGPT 4 to prepare correspondence such as birthday greetings, comments on Linkedin, and even an escalation email with a bank. I always consider the GPT response as a draft and will make changes."

See post here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...place-audio-writers.41443/page-9#post-1993802

@DonM can you clarify?

@RickS you might want to look into this.
I was not aware of Amir's recent announcement on Oct 1, 2025 (Official policy on use of AI) concerning how AI should be used and when it should be disclosed. By the way I just used Perplexity to find that announcement.
 
Last edited:
Her key finding, crucial for audio science, is that the brain does not have a purely "auditory" map of space. Instead, it constantly translates and aligns sound location information with visual and eye movement signals.

This could explain why 2-channel sound becomes so much bigger and more immersive with eyes closed listening (width, depth, sense of closeness and envelopment, etc).
 
This could explain why 2-channel sound becomes so much bigger and more immersive with eyes closed listening (width, depth, sense of closeness and envelopment, etc).
I have the opposite experience. For instance in my former house listening/living room my speakers where placed such that behind them there was a large window facing a 20 meter deep garden. By looking in to this depth it added to the speaker imaging experience considerable than closing my eyes.
 
Last edited:
I have the opposite experience. For instance in my former house listening/living room my speakers where placed such that behind them there was a large window facing a 20 meter deep garden. By looking in to this depth it added to the speaker imaging experience considerable than closing my eyes.
Interesting. In another thread someone had contemplated whether adding a compelling visual depth cue could have such an effect, and it sounds like a possible yes based on your experience. It could still be the same neural cognitive effect with the opposite 'nudge' from the visual cues.

I find that my brain fills in the ambiance with a greater sense of density(?) with eyes closed, whereas when I open my eyes the sight of walls significantly lessens the effect. Any comments on that experience?
 
Last edited:
As you i find Dr. Groh’s video quite complex and detailed. I started thinking about how her work might relate to that of Dr. Sean Olive an Dr. Floyd Tool. The connection seemed obvious, but I left it to ChatGPT to summarize it more (i hope) efficiently. Comment if not correct.

Chatgpt:
Comparison between Groh and Olive/Toole

Dr. Sean Olive
Led the research at Harman International that established the Harman target curve for headphones and loudspeakers.
Based on extensive listener preference tests, Olive identified the frequency response most listeners find natural and enjoyable.
His work focuses on empirical listener data to define ideal sound reproduction targets.

Floyd Toole
Made significant contributions to Harman’s acoustic measurement techniques and psychoacoustic analysis. His research focuses on perceptual preferences in sound reproduction, especially in loudspeaker evaluation.
While Toole helped develop the methodology and understanding of listener preferences, the specific headphone target curve is primarily credited to Olive.

Jennifer Groh
Studies the neural mechanisms by which the brain integrates and localizes auditory and visual information.
Her work is fundamental and biological: explaining how and why perception is shaped by multisensory integration, attention, and context.
Conclusion: perception is dynamic, context-dependent, and influenced by sensory input and cognition.

Relation / Synthesis
Olive and Toole describe what people collectively prefer (behavioral and measurement level).
Groh explains why and how the brain constructs those preferences (neural level).

Olive and Toole quantify the outcome of human perception; Groh investigates the mechanisms behind it


In short:
Olive’s research defines the Harman target curve as the result of listener preferences, supported by Toole’s broader measurement and perceptual work, while Groh explains the cause through neural processes.
Their work isn’t contradictory — it operates at different levels of the perception chain, from neurons to listening preference
Yes I do agree with the comparison that you posted. Now I would like to take this discussion to the next level. Audiophiles are always generally looking for ways to enhance the experience. So I asked Perplexity what are the benefits for an Audiophile who understands the neurological brain studies referred to by Dr. Groh. In the past each time I have taken the time to understand key elements leading to the reproduction of sound, I have been able to tweak my cabinet designs, rebuild crossovers, compare horns to traditional tweeters etc.

Perplexity Response:
"Based on Dr. Jennifer Groh's research on how the brain processes sound, the benefits to an audiophile who understands these brain processes when listening to music include:

Enhanced appreciation of multisensory integration: Groh’s work shows that the brain dynamically integrates visual and auditory information, shaping perception of sound in context. Audiophiles can better appreciate how visual cues and spatial awareness influence their listening experience, such as how sound localization and source separation are perceived by the brain.

Improved understanding of spatial sound perception: Groh discovered that neurons use complex mechanisms to encode sound location, involving neural "tug-of-war" signals that vary based on intensity and side of the brain rather than a simple code. This elucidates why spatial audio cues (such as those in headphones or surround sound speakers) can greatly impact the immersive quality of music listening.

Awareness of dynamic, context-dependent perception: Perception is influenced by attention, cognition, and the brain’s ongoing interpretation of sensory inputs. Knowing this can help audiophiles recognize why listening environments, focus, and expectations affect how music sounds to them subjectively.

Insight into neural basis of preference formation: While researchers like Dr. Sean Olive define preferred sound targets based on behavioral data, Groh explains the neural mechanisms underlying why those preferences exist, grounding subjective preferences in brain activity. This can guide audiophiles in understanding personal sound preferences at a deeper level.

In short, understanding Groh’s findings helps audiophiles make sense of the biological and neural mechanisms behind how they localize, integrate, and cognitively interpret sound, enriching their listening experience and informing choices in audio equipment and environments for optimal perception."

I'm hoping that this new dimension will enhance the knowledge of ASR forum readers.
 
Interesting. In another thread someone had contemplated whether adding a compelling visual depth cue could have such an effect, and it sounds like a possible yes based on your experience. It could still be the same neural cognitive effect with the opposite 'nudge' from the visual cues.

I find that my brain fills in the ambiance with a greater sense of density(?) with eyes closed, whereas when I open my eyes the sight of walls significantly lessens the effect. Any comments on that experience?

After watching Groh’s talk, I’d say it comes down to how our brains integrate sensory cues. Whether you keep your eyes open or closed, your perception is a sort of construction shaped by experience and preferenc. Quite fascinating.
 
I have the opposite experience. For instance in my former house listening/living room my speakers where placed such that behind them there was a large window facing a 20 meter deep garden. By looking in to this depth it added to the speaker imaging experience considerable than closing my eyes.

Another interesting observation has been pointed out. Why do some listeners prefer different listening spaces. Other examples include listening to mono versus stereo versus surround sound. This can often tie back to the neurological processes in the brain developed by us when we were growing up. There is an article posted in Slate which can offer an explanation:

Neural Nostalgia
Why do we love the music we heard as teenagers?

Summary of Article by Perplexity (Edited)

"Music we love as teenagers holds a special, lasting power over our emotions and memories, often feeling sweeter and more significant than songs we encounter later in life.

As we hear a song, multiple regions of the brain are activated, converting rhythms into meaning and bringing up personal and emotional memories.

Favorite songs stimulate the brain’s pleasure circuit, releasing neurochemicals like dopamine and serotonin, creating feelings similar to those induced by love or drugs.

During ages 12-22, our brains are rapidly developing and especially receptive; the music we love then gets “wired” in more deeply—creating strong, emotionally charged memory traces due to heightened pubertal growth hormones.

Psychologists refer to the “reminiscence bump”—we remember more vividly events and music from our teens and early adulthood, since these years coincide with forming a stable self-image.

Music from this period is not only attached to pivotal memories, it becomes part of our personal narrative and sense of self.

As adults, while our tastes may mature, the emotional connection to these songs serves as a “neurological wormhole” to youthful passion. Hearing them revives the joy and intensity we felt during that formative time, giving them enduring emotional power.

In short, the article explains why musical nostalgia is deeply rooted in our neurology and psychology, with teenage and young adult music creating persistent emotional connections that outlast later experiences."

In University I worked part time as an Audio Technician for theatre events and movies. We had Altec Lansing speakers with horns in the auditorium. I still have Altec speakers today in our family room. The cabinets, the horns and the crossovers have been updated. I also use DSP to tweak the response. I still prefer listening to these over other traditional speakers.
 
Yes I do agree with the comparison that you posted. Now I would like to take this discussion to the next level. Audiophiles are always generally looking for ways to enhance the experience. So I asked Perplexity what are the benefits for an Audiophile who understands the neurological brain studies referred to by Dr. Groh. In the past each time I have taken the time to understand key elements leading to the reproduction of sound, I have been able to tweak my cabinet designs, rebuild crossovers, compare horns to traditional tweeters etc.

Perplexity Response:
"Based on Dr. Jennifer Groh's research on how the brain processes sound, the benefits to an audiophile who understands these brain processes when listening to music include:

Enhanced appreciation of multisensory integration: Groh’s work shows that the brain dynamically integrates visual and auditory information, shaping perception of sound in context. Audiophiles can better appreciate how visual cues and spatial awareness influence their listening experience, such as how sound localization and source separation are perceived by the brain.

Improved understanding of spatial sound perception: Groh discovered that neurons use complex mechanisms to encode sound location, involving neural "tug-of-war" signals that vary based on intensity and side of the brain rather than a simple code. This elucidates why spatial audio cues (such as those in headphones or surround sound speakers) can greatly impact the immersive quality of music listening.

Awareness of dynamic, context-dependent perception: Perception is influenced by attention, cognition, and the brain’s ongoing interpretation of sensory inputs. Knowing this can help audiophiles recognize why listening environments, focus, and expectations affect how music sounds to them subjectively.

Insight into neural basis of preference formation: While researchers like Dr. Sean Olive define preferred sound targets based on behavioral data, Groh explains the neural mechanisms underlying why those preferences exist, grounding subjective preferences in brain activity. This can guide audiophiles in understanding personal sound preferences at a deeper level.

In short, understanding Groh’s findings helps audiophiles make sense of the biological and neural mechanisms behind how they localize, integrate, and cognitively interpret sound, enriching their listening experience and informing choices in audio equipment and environments for optimal perception."

I'm hoping that this new dimension will enhance the knowledge of ASR forum readers.
This could also help explain the renewed fascination with vinyl . Maybe it’s not just about the sound, but how the whole sensory and emotional context shapes what we hear.
 
This could also help explain the renewed fascination with vinyl . Maybe it’s not just about the sound, but how the whole sensory and emotional context shapes what we hear.
Your observation is excellent.

Perplexity (Edited)
"When audiophiles add turntables and vinyl records to their home listening experience, they often revisit music from their formative years. This “neural nostalgia” is especially powerful because:
  • Music from adolescence and early adulthood (ages 12–22) is deeply wired into the brain during a stage of heightened neurodevelopment.
  • Listening to such music revives emotional memories and identity, strengthening the pleasure response.
  • The tactile experience of vinyl—placing the record, hearing the analog warmth—can heighten engagement and ritual, enhancing emotional connection through multiple senses.
Engaging with nostalgic music (often on vinyl for audiophiles) does indeed help stimulate the release of mood-lifting hormones and foster a sense of emotional well-being and grounding."

When I watch a movie on the TV today, listening to the sound from my Altec speakers, it does bring back memories from University when I worked as a projectionist, enhancing the experience!
 
Your observation is excellent.

Perplexity (Edited)
"When audiophiles add turntables and vinyl records to their home listening experience, they often revisit music from their formative years. This “neural nostalgia” is especially powerful because:
  • Music from adolescence and early adulthood (ages 12–22) is deeply wired into the brain during a stage of heightened neurodevelopment.
  • Listening to such music revives emotional memories and identity, strengthening the pleasure response.
  • The tactile experience of vinyl—placing the record, hearing the analog warmth—can heighten engagement and ritual, enhancing emotional connection through multiple senses.
Engaging with nostalgic music (often on vinyl for audiophiles) does indeed help stimulate the release of mood-lifting hormones and foster a sense of emotional well-being and grounding."

When I watch a movie on the TV today, listening to the sound from my Altec speakers, it does bring back memories from University when I worked as a projectionist, enhancing the experience!
IMO whatever makes you feel good and balanced is what really matters. Digital or analog it's all about how the experience connects with you. After Groh’s findings, maybe we can finally relax about the whole vinyl vs. digital debate.:facepalm:
 
we are discussing 2 different things:
one is the assessment of the fidelity of a system, for that is better to be blinded.
The other is the experience of the magic of music, for that you can add any bias of your wish.
 
Back
Top Bottom