ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016
Onset-Duration Matching of Acoustic Stimuli Revisited: Conventional Arithmetic vs. Proposed Geometric Measures of Accuracy and Precision.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sound localization in web-based 3D environments.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A Hierarchy of Time Scales for Discriminating and Classifying the Temporal Shape of Sound in Three Auditory Cortical Fields.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
- Rate, not selectivity, determines neuronal population coding accuracy in auditory cortex.PLoS biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Onsets of acoustic stimuli are salient transients and are relevant in humans for the perception of music and speech. Previous studies of onset-duration discrimination and matching focused on whether onsets are perceived categorically. In this study, we address two issues. First, we revisit onset-duration matching and measure, for 79 conditions, how accurately and precisely human listeners can adjust the onset duration of a comparison stimulus to subjectively match that of a standard stimulus. Second, we explore measures for quantifying performance in this and other matching tasks. The conventional measures of accuracy and precision are defined by arithmetic descriptive statistics and the Euclidean distance function on the real numbers. We propose novel measures based on geometric descriptive statistics and the log-ratio distance function, the Euclidean distance function on the positive-real numbers. Only these properly account for the fact that the magnitude of onset durations, like the magnitudes of most physical quantities, can attain only positive real values. The conventional (arithmetic) measures possess a convexity bias that yields errors that grow with the width of the distribution of matches. This convexity bias leads to misrepresentations of the constant error and could even imply the existence of perceptual illusions where none exist. This is not so for the proposed (geometric) measures. We collected up to 68 matches from a given listener for each condition (about 34,000 matches in total) and examined inter-listener variability and the effects of onset duration, plateau duration, sound level, carrier, and restriction of the range of adjustable comparison stimuli on measures of accuracy and precision. Results obtained with the conventional measures generally agree with those reported in the literature. The variance across listeners is highly heterogeneous for the conventional measures but is homogeneous for the proposed measures. Furthermore, the proposed measures show that listeners tend to under- rather than to overestimate the onset duration of the comparison stimuli. They further reveal effects of the stimulus carrier on accuracy and precision which are missed by the conventional measures. Our results have broad implications for psychophysical studies that use arithmetic measures to quantify performance when geometric measures should instead be used.
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.