ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2020
Yes/no and two-interval forced-choice tasks with listener-based vs observer-based responses.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Confirming an antiphasic bicyclic pattern of forward entrainment in signal detection: A reanalysis of Sun et al. (2021).The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Observer-based procedures are used to assess auditory behavior in infants, often incorporating adaptive tracking algorithms. These procedures are reliable, but effects of modifications made to accommodate infant testing are not fully understood. One modification is that observation intervals are undefined for the listener, introducing signal-temporal uncertainty and increasing the likelihood that listener response bias will influence estimates of performance. The effect of these factors was evaluated by comparing threshold estimates obtained from adults using two tasks: (1) single-interval, yes/no and (2) two-interval, forced-choice. Detection thresholds were estimated adaptively for a 1000-Hz FM tone in quiet and for a word presented in two-talker speech masking. Trials were initiated and judged by the observer (observer-based) or the listener (listener-based). Thus, listening intervals were temporally uncertain in observer-based procedures and temporally defined in listener-based procedures. Thresholds were higher for observer-based relative to corresponding listener-based procedures. The magnitude of this difference was similar across the yes/no and two-interval tasks, and was larger for masked word detection than tone detection in quiet. Listeners adopted a conservative criterion when tested using the observer-based, yes/no procedure, but modeling results suggest that signal-temporal uncertainty accounts for the largest portion of the threshold difference between observer-based and listener-based procedures.
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.