Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788581›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

The cost of simplicity: comparing sounds in the lab vs. everyday environment.

Andrés E Elizondo López, Michael Schutz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrés E Elizondo LópezPsychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. elizonda@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4278-0831
Michael SchutzPsychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6882-5928

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do the sounds encountered in lab-based experiments compare with those heard in everyday listening? A detailed survey of non-speech auditory perception stimuli from 1000+ experiments in prominent journals showed approximately 90% are simplistic tones with minimal temporal variation (Schutz & Gillard Scientific Reports, 10(1) 9520, 2020). To contextualize that finding, here we apply a similar framework for classifying a corpus of everyday sounds drawn from two sources: (a) recordings intentionally selected to represent common sound events organized by Norman-Haignere et al. Neuron, 88(6) 1281-1296, (2015), and (b) recordings from two million + YouTube videos by Gemmeke et al. (2017). We found that 87% of non-speech sounds in this sample exhibit complex, time-varying characteristics-which are found in less than 11% of non-speech auditory perception stimuli. As these results provide clear documentation of a profound disconnect between what the auditory system encounters in everyday listening and how it is studied in laboratories, we conclude by reviewing an emerging body of research exploring ways in which sounds lacking temporal complexity fail to fully reveal the auditory system's limits and capabilities. This demonstrates the risks inherent in attempting to draw generalized conclusions about the auditory system from a body of research focused overwhelmingly on a single type of stimulus.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionSoundAcoustic StimulationHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.