ArticlePloS one2024
Toward the validation of crowdsourced experiments for lightness perception.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crowdsource platforms have been used to study a range of perceptual stimuli such as the graphical perception of scatterplots and various aspects of human color perception. Given the lack of control over a crowdsourced participant's experimental setup, there are valid concerns on the use of crowdsourcing for color studies as the perception of the stimuli is highly dependent on the stimulus presentation. Here, we propose that the error due to a crowdsourced experimental design can be effectively averaged out because the crowdsourced experiment can be accommodated by the Thurstonian model as the convolution of two normal distributions, one that is perceptual in nature and one that captures the error due to variability in stimulus presentation. Based on this, we provide a mathematical estimate for the sample size needed to produce a crowdsourced experiment with the same power as the corresponding in-person study. We tested this claim by replicating a large-scale, crowdsourced study of human lightness perception with a diverse sample with a highly controlled, in-person study with a sample taken from psychology undergraduates. Our claim was supported by the replication of the results from the latter. These findings suggest that, with sufficient sample size, color vision studies may be completed online, giving access to a larger and more representative sample. With this framework at hand, experimentalists have the validation that choosing either many online participants or few in person participants will not sacrifice the impact of their results.
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.