Section 133 of 440
FAMILY 10: AUDITORY PERCEPTION, LOCALIZATION & ECHOLOCATION
Superdomain: Perception & Sensorimotor. This family contains eight stable Power records.
PWR-073 · Sound localisation
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Spatial hearing can adapt, but it is a calibrated skill—not a universal sonar upgrade.
Definition. Capability to develop or express sound localisation in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Sound localisation can adapt to a changed or asymmetric cue configuration, but improvement remains task-, anatomy-, hearing- and environment-specific.
Measurement boundary. Declare azimuth/elevation/distance, source spectrum, room, head movement, device state and error distribution; no single localisation score covers spatial hearing.
Myth. Hear exactly where anything is
Metric. Angular/distance error for unfamiliar sources and rooms
Boundary. One trained array cannot establish accurate localisation across every spectrum, elevation and reverberant space.
Negative and limiting findings.
Ten weeks of click-echolocation practice did not improve two ordinary sound-localisation measures.
Some no-training change and cue specificity limit causal and transfer claims.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Supernatural 3D hearing
Locate anything through walls
Earplug one ear to strengthen the other
Echolocation automatically improves ordinary localisation
Evidence references. [1] limiting or contrary evidence; [4] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [14] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [16] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration.
PWR-074 · Pitch discrimination
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Pitch thresholds can sharpen, usually for what was actually practised—not hearing as a whole.
Definition. Capability to develop or express pitch discrimination in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Pitch discrimination can improve with practice on a defined frequency or harmonic stimulus, while generalisation is limited.
Measurement boundary. Use a calibrated just-noticeable difference with declared carrier, harmonic structure, level and procedure; keep naming, memory and discrimination separate.
Myth. Perfect ears
Metric. Pitch/frequency difference threshold across trained and unfamiliar stimuli
Boundary. A smaller just-noticeable difference does not confer note naming, memory, musicianship or general hearing acuity.
Negative and limiting findings.
Frequency learning can be tightly centred on the trained frequency.
Absolute-pitch naming practice did not improve fine pitch discrimination or relative-pitch judgement.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Hear every frequency perfectly
Develop perfect pitch by discrimination drills
Superior pitch means superior musician
Louder practice trains faster
Evidence references. [2] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration.
PWR-075 · Speech-in-noise understanding
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Listening in noise can improve on selected tasks; an app score is not the same as easier real conversation.
Definition. Capability to develop or express speech-in-noise understanding in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Speech-in-noise training can improve selected materials or configured tasks, but broad everyday listening transfer is inconsistent.
Measurement boundary. Declare speech corpus, language, masker, spatial layout, SNR, device state and fatigue; separate trained-material accuracy from new-speaker and real-conversation outcomes.
Myth. Hear every word in a crowd
Metric. Untrained speech reception threshold plus real-conversation participation
Boundary. Trained-item accuracy does not establish effortless listening, cure hearing loss or replace preferred communication access.
Negative and limiting findings.
A large at-home trial found durable trained-word learning without broad nontrained or self-report transfer.
A phoneme-training trial did not produce consistent general speech-in-noise benefit.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Hear any conversation anywhere
Train away hearing loss
Stop using hearing aids or captions
One app fixes auditory processing
Evidence references. [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [8] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [17] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary.
PWR-076 · Auditory scene analysis
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. The brain can learn a specific sound pattern without becoming a universal noise filter.
Definition. Capability to develop or express auditory scene analysis in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. People can learn to separate selected auditory patterns, but the learning may be tightly tuned and does not establish general ‘cocktail-party’ mastery.
Measurement boundary. Predeclare number/type of sources, cue dimensions, target, masker, accuracy and new-scene transfer; neural responses remain mechanism measures.
Myth. Choose one voice in any crowd
Metric. Target-source accuracy in novel multi-source scenes with fatigue
Boundary. A trained vowel or modulation threshold does not create universal selective hearing.
Negative and limiting findings.
Learning on one spectrotemporal modulation did not generalise broadly and some untrained detection worsened.
No mapped study established daily multi-speaker transfer.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Isolate any sound at will
Switch off background noise with the brain
Train universal auditory scene analysis
Neural change proves real-world benefit
Evidence references. [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration.
PWR-077 · Auditory temporal resolution
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. People can learn a particular auditory timing test; that does not prove a universally faster ear.
Definition. Capability to develop or express auditory temporal resolution in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Auditory gap and interval thresholds can improve, but the gain is tied to the test configuration and has not been shown to sharpen hearing generally.
Measurement boundary. Declare marker spectrum, gap/interval, ear, adaptive rule and reliability; use multiple measures before any broader interpretation.
Myth. Hear between milliseconds
Metric. Reliable threshold across untrained gap and interval configurations
Boundary. A lower trained threshold does not establish speech, music or global processing-speed benefit.
Negative and limiting findings.
Two accepted temporal-resolution tests do not classify performance identically.
Transfer failed across some spectral-marker changes and remained interval-specific.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Speed up the auditory brain
Hear microscopic gaps in all sound
A gap test diagnoses auditory processing
Temporal drills guarantee better speech
Evidence references. [6] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration.
PWR-078 · Publication hold
Evidence route: Status notice only. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Status correction: PWR-078 remains held from explanatory publication and current operational use. Titan does not authorise this material as training, navigation or mobility instruction. It does not establish safe independent navigation and does not advise replacing a cane, guide dog, live assistance or qualified orientation-and-mobility support. Legacy protocol-like material is superseded for current actionability and retained only as historical lineage.
Environmental accessibility remains a separate requirement.
No explainer, bounded evidence summary, training guide, stepwise protocol, navigation or mobility instruction, assessment route, promotion path, independent-validation claim or operational actionability is authorised.
Controlling correction: /corrections/pwr-078-status-and-safety/. Status record: /data/titan_pwr078_correction_status_v1.json.
PWR-079 · Absolute and relational pitch memory
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Pitch memory is more widespread than note naming, and some adults can learn the labels—without becoming musically superior.
Definition. Capability to develop or express absolute and relational pitch memory in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Adults can possess latent long-term pitch memory and some can learn accurate reference-free pitch labels, but gains are variable and do not confer perfect or superior musical hearing.
Measurement boundary. Separate familiar-pitch memory, isolated-note naming, relational interval judgement, timbre/octave transfer and delayed retention; avoid a single binary label.
Myth. Perfect pitch
Metric. Accuracy, calibration and retention across memory, naming and relation tasks
Boundary. Reference-free labelling is neither perfect nor a general measure of hearing or musicianship.
Negative and limiting findings.
Explicit naming practice did not improve relative-pitch judgement or fine discrimination.
Only a minority reached stringent all-category criteria and methods vary.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Anyone can acquire perfect pitch
Absolute pitch makes a better musician
Pitch naming improves all hearing
Use medication to reopen a critical period
Evidence references. [12] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [19] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [20] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration.
PWR-080 · Auditory navigation and substitution
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Sensory-substitution tools can add real spatial information—but the capability belongs to person, device, training, mobility tools and environment together.
Definition. Capability to develop or express auditory navigation and substitution in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Auditory and haptic substitution can add selected navigation information in a declared device-plus-user configuration; it does not restore biological vision or universally replace a cane, guide dog or O&M training.
Cross-lane boundary. Configured auditory or haptic assistive technology only. This record does not authorise PWR-078 or human click-based echolocation. PWR-078 remains held from explanatory publication and current operational use.
Measurement boundary. Report intended-user status, training, device on/off, cane/guide-dog/human support, collision type, speed, cognitive load, dropout and failure mode; no device-only score is capability in full.
Myth. See with sound
Metric. Device-on/off added value in intended users with established aids, failures and delayed use
Boundary. Encoded spatial information is not biological vision, universal safety or authority to remove a person's chosen mobility tools.
Negative and limiting findings.
One pilot system did not outperform the white cane and device-only travel was slower with more collisions.
A downward sensor missed low steps at unsafe rates.
Helpful camera/AI output also slowed walking in a controlled comparison.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Restore sight through sound
Throw away the cane
AI makes blind travel autonomous
A blindfolded sighted test proves blind-user safety
Evidence references. [5] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [13] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [18] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [21] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [22] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [23] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
Family source register
Numbers in each dossier refer to this family register. A source can support one bounded proposition while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
[1] L. Thaler; L. J. Norman (2021). No effect of 10-week training in click-based echolocation on auditory localization in people who are blind. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-021-06230-5
[2] S. Carcagno; C. J. Plack (2011). Pitch discrimination learning: specificity for pitch and harmonic resolvability, and electrophysiological correlates. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21484466/
[3] K. S. Reinke; Y. He; C. Wang; C. Alain (2003). Perceptual learning modulates sensory evoked response during vowel segregation. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14561463/
[4] G. Rabini; E. Altobelli; F. Pavani (2019). Interactions between egocentric and allocentric spatial coding of sounds revealed by a multisensory learning paradigm. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31133688/
[5] C. E. Pittet; E. Villar Ortega; M. Fabien; M. T. Wallace; M. Gori; M. M. Murray (2026). Efficacy of electronic travel aids for the blind and visually impaired during wayfinding. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37578-9
[6] R. Vaidyanath; A. Yathiraj (2015). Comparison of Performance of Older Adults on Two Tests of Temporal Resolution. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25652341/
[7] M. A. Ferguson; H. Henshaw; D. P. Clark; D. R. Moore (2014). Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24752284/
[8] L. E. Humes; K. G. Skinner; D. L. Kinney; S. E. Rogers; A. K. Main; T. M. Quigley (2019). Clinical Effectiveness of an At-Home Auditory Training Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30575602/
[9] U. R. Karmarkar; D. V. Buonomano (2003). Temporal specificity of perceptual learning in an auditory discrimination task. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12663752/
[10] D. R. Irvine; R. L. Martin; E. Klimkeit; R. Smith (2000). Specificity of perceptual learning in a frequency discrimination task. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11144588/
[11] S. K. Mishra; M. R. Panda (2016). Rapid auditory learning of temporal gap detection. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27475211/
[12] Y. K. Wong; V. S. H. Ngan; L. Y. T. Cheung; A. C.-N. Wong (2020). Absolute pitch learning in adults speaking non-tonal languages. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820935776
[13] A. Neugebauer; K. Rifai; M. Getzlaff; S. Wahl (2020). Navigation aid for blind persons by visual-to-auditory sensory substitution: a pilot study. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237344
[14] D. P. Kumpik; O. Kacelnik; A. J. King (2010). Adaptive reweighting of auditory localization cues in response to chronic unilateral earplugging in humans. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20371808/
[15] A. T. Sabin; D. A. Eddins; B. A. Wright (2012). Perceptual learning evidence for tuning to spectrotemporal modulation in the human auditory system. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22573676/
[16] L. Shim; J. Lee; J. H. Han; H. Jeon; S. K. Hong; H. J. Lee (2023). Feasibility of Virtual Reality-Based Auditory Localization Training With Binaurally Recorded Auditory Stimuli for Patients With Single-Sided Deafness. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37080730/
[17] P. Reynard; V. Attina; S. Idriss; R. Hermann; C. Barilly; E. Veuillet; C. A. Joly; H. Thai-Van (2022). Effect of Serious Gaming on Speech-in-Noise Intelligibility in Adult Cochlear Implantees: A Randomized Controlled Study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35629004/
[18] M. Bleau; S. Paré; I. Djerourou; D. R. Chebat; R. Kupers; M. Ptito (2021). Blindness and the Reliability of Downwards Sensors to Avoid Obstacles: A Study with the EyeCane. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082700
[19] D. J. Levitin (1994). Absolute memory for musical pitch: evidence from the production of learned melodies. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206733
[20] Y. K. Wong; K. F. H. Lui; K. H. M. Yip; A. C.-N. Wong (2020). Is it impossible to acquire absolute pitch in adulthood?. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01869-3
[21] CNIB Foundation (2026). Getting around: orientation and mobility. Official authority. https://www.cnib.ca/en/getting-around
[22] United States Food and Drug Administration / Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (2015). 21 CFR 886.5905: Oral electronic vision aid. Official authority. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-886/subpart-F/section-886.5905
[23] World Health Organization (2026). Deafness and hearing loss: Safe listening. Official authority. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/deafness-and-hearing-loss-safe-listening