Your Ear Is a Tape Measure

The human brain judges distance based on sight—and hearing—according to a new study

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The experience of seeing a lightning bolt before hearing its associated thunder some seconds later provides a fairly obvious example of the differential speeds of light and sound. But most intervals between linked visual and auditory stimuli are so brief as to be imperceptible. A new study has found that we can glean distance information from these minimally discrepant arrival times nonetheless.

In a pair of experiments at the University of Rochester, 12 subjects were shown projected clusters of dots. When a sound was played about 40 or 60 milliseconds after the dots appeared (too short to be detected consciously), participants judged the clusters to be farther away than clusters with simultaneous or preceding sounds. Philip Jaekl, the lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive neuroscience, says it makes sense that the brain would use all available sensory information for calculating distance. “Distance is something that's very difficult to compute,” he explains. The study was recently published in the journal PLOS ONE.

343 Meters/Second


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Speed of sound in dry air at 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

299,792,458 Meters/Second

Speed of light in a vacuum.

SOURCES: HYPERPHYSICS http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe3.html (top stat); NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE ON CONSTANTS, UNITS, AND UNCERTAINTY http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c (bottom stat)

Aaron Seitz, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the work, says the results may be useful clinically, such as by helping people with amblyopia (lazy eye) improve their performance when training to see with both eyes. And there might be other practical applications, including making virtual-reality environments more realistic. “Adding in a delay,” says Nick Whiting, a VR engineer for Epic Games, “can be another technique in our repertoire in creating believable experiences.”

Geoffrey Giller is a freelance science writer based in Ithaca, N.Y., and a former intern at Scientific American. His work has also appeared in Audubon, Hakai Magazine and The Scientist. You can follow him on Twitter @GeoffreyGiller.

More by Geoffrey Giller
Scientific American Magazine Vol 314 Issue 2This article was published with the title “The Ear as Tape Measure” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 314 No. 2 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0216-16a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe