ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2017
Headphone screening to facilitate web-based auditory experiments.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 172 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
172 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Language experience predicts music processing in a half-million speakers of fifty-four languages.Current biology : CB · 2023Pooled it
- Beyond expectations: nocebo suggestion affects cognitive performance in older adults.Psychological research · 2026Trial
- Crowdsourced Perceptual Ratings of Voice Quality in People With Parkinson's Disease Before and After Intensive Voice and Articulation Therapies: Secondary Outcome of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic-phonetic cue weighting.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Human perception of avian biodiversity in naturalistic auditory scenes.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- ¿Sabes si viene un code-switch? Bilinguals can predict upcoming code-switches given enough context.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Shared capacity limitations in auditory scene analysis and central attention: Evidence from auditory search in a dual-task paradigm.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Online Assessment and Enhancement of Auditory Perception for Residual /ɹ/ Distortions.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Remote Sensory-Cognitive Assessment in Children with Autism: Evaluating Feasibility and Performance Outcomes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phonetic variability leads to gradient speech perception.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2026Article
- Optimized feature gains explain and predict successes and failures of human selective listening.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Prediction from Statistical Learning Aids Auditory Scene Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Hallucination Proneness is Linked to Over-Reliance on Internal Priors for Noisy Speech.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Rhythmic skills mediate the link between music training and cognition via attention and phonological processing.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- From sound to source: Human and model recognition of environmental sounds.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Coarser event segmentation and impaired temporal order memory in subclinical ADHD.Psychological research · 2026Article
- The dual-task costs of audiovisual benefit: Effects of noise and "native" speaker status.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Does the Use of Crowdsourced Listeners Yield Different Speech Intelligibility Results Than In-Person Listeners for Typically Developing Children?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Bilinguals have better recall for code-switched information.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
112 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Psychophysical experiments conducted remotely over the internet permit data collection from large numbers of participants but sacrifice control over sound presentation and therefore are not widely employed in hearing research. To help standardize online sound presentation, we introduce a brief psychophysical test for determining whether online experiment participants are wearing headphones. Listeners judge which of three pure tones is quietest, with one of the tones presented 180° out of phase across the stereo channels. This task is intended to be easy over headphones but difficult over loudspeakers due to phase-cancellation. We validated the test in the lab by testing listeners known to be wearing headphones or listening over loudspeakers. The screening test was effective and efficient, discriminating between the two modes of listening with a small number of trials. When run online, a bimodal distribution of scores was obtained, suggesting that some participants performed the task over loudspeakers despite instructions to use headphones. The ability to detect and screen out these participants mitigates concerns over sound quality for online experiments, a first step toward opening auditory perceptual research to the possibilities afforded by crowdsourcing.
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.