Chewing and Sound Localization

Sound localization is the ability of a listener to identify the source or origin of a sound, in this paper we focus on the factors affecting sound localization, this study is performed to establishing whether chewing has an effect on sound localization. Chewing leads to head movements that may affect sound localization, according to previous studies undertaken head movements affect sound localization.
This paper analysis response from ten participants whose sound localization errors were recorded while and while not chewing, data collected helped test the hypothesis whether chewing affected localization. The following is an analysis of research undertaken by scholars in the past and the results of the study.
Many studies have been undertaken in the past regarding sound localization, however majority of this studies have been undertaken with immobilized heads and very few have been undertaken while respondents were chewing. A study by Wallach (1939) showed that head movements affected sound localization, in his study participants were allowed to rotate their head, tip their head and even pivoting. Results show that head movements affected sound localization by participants. However it was also evident that the sound moved with the head.
Mangles and Runge (1967) sound localization study results showed that Monaural is as good as binaural when movements were allowed, participants were a…
Hypothesis and prediction
The hypothesis that was tested is whether chewing have any effect on ability to detect the direction of sound, the null hypothesis is that chewing has no effect on sound localization and the alternative hypothesis is that chewing increased the mean error score for localization. We test this hypothesis by performing a T test that will compare the two means from the two tests, we expect that we will reject the null hypothesis that the two means are equal and accept the alternative hypothesis that states that the two means are not equal.
Null hypothesis: a = b where a is the mean error score for localization for test one and two are equal and alternative hypothesis a b or a &lt. b meaning that the mean error score of localization for test one and two are not equal, therefore we expect to reject the null hypothesis.
Methods:
In order to test our hypothesis a sample of ten individuals was randomly selected. The sample was further subdivided into two groups which included those would first chew and data collected and then data recorded with the absence of chewing. For the other group data was to be collected without chewing and then data would be collected while chewing.
The experiment was carried out using MAT LB computer software, participants sat in front of a computer and given headphones, they were then asked to locate the source of sound 180 degrees in front. The condition was that the participants would chew and then stop chewing and then they were allowed five minutes where they would continue with the second condition which is no chewing and then chew. For each of these two conditions