ArticlePsychological research2025
The cost of simplicity: comparing sounds in the lab vs. everyday environment.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40788581What 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.