ArticlePeerJ2015
Conducting perception research over the internet: a tutorial review.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 303 citations in OpenAlex.
- Web-based psychoacoustics: Hearing screening, infrastructure, and validation.Behavior research methods · 2024Pooled it
- Summation of visual attributes in auditory-visual crossmodal correspondences.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Trial
- When "Bouba" equals "Kiki": Cultural commonalities and cultural differences in sound-shape correspondences.Scientific reports · 2016Trial
- Distinct Roles of Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Speech-in-Noise Perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- When attention matters: Domain-specific disruption of explicit but not implicit memory in statistical learning.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- The stability of colour-emotion associations across colour presentation modes and experimental settings.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Measuring executive functions online: Interactive effects of experimenter presence, instruction feedback, session order, and task difficulty.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Pilot Data for a New Headphone-Based Assessment of Absolute Localization in the Assessment of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD).Audiology research · 2025Article
- Comparison of Psychometric Functions Measured Using Remote Testing and Laboratory Testing.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Methodological considerations for behavioral studies relying on response time outcomes through online crowdsourcing platforms.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Creating web applications for online psychological experiments: A hands-on technical guide including a template.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Assessing the reliability of web-based measurements of visual function.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Sand, Sandpaper, and Sandwiches: Evidence From a Masked Compound Priming Task in L1 and L2 Speakers of English.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Article
- Are social interactions preferentially attended in real-world scenes? Evidence from change blindness.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- To BYOD or not: Are device latencies important for bring-your-own-device (BYOD) smartphone cognitive testing?Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Associations between blackout drinking and self-reported everyday cognition among young adults.Addictive behaviors · 2023Article
- Impulsivity typologies and simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Can we measure individual differences in cognitive measures reliably via smartphones? A comparison of the flanker effect across device types and samples.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Using Reddit as a recruitment strategy for addiction science research.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2023Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the recent literature on the use of internet-based testing to address important questions in perception research. Our goal is to provide a starting point for the perception researcher who is keen on assessing this tool for their own research goals. Internet-based testing has several advantages over in-lab research, including the ability to reach a relatively broad set of participants and to quickly and inexpensively collect large amounts of empirical data, via services such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk or Prolific Academic. In many cases, the quality of online data appears to match that collected in lab research. Generally-speaking, online participants tend to be more representative of the population at large than those recruited for lab based research. There are, though, some important caveats, when it comes to collecting data online. It is obviously much more difficult to control the exact parameters of stimulus presentation (such as display characteristics) with online research. There are also some thorny ethical elements that need to be considered by experimenters. Strengths and weaknesses of the online approach, relative to others, are highlighted, and recommendations made for those researchers who might be thinking about conducting their own studies using this increasingly-popular approach to research in the psychological sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.