IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What's the problem with double-blind testing?
mirrorsawlljk
post Oct 19 2005, 03:03
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15-October 05
Member No.: 25138



I happened to pick up an issue of stereophile at a record store I visited and I was pretty shocked to see a seemingly intelligent person in the correspondence section bashing double blind testing as being unreliable. I'm afraid I don't understand his angle of attack. I don't see how anything could be a more reliable test of sound quality differences than a properly conducted double blind listening test.

I'm almost afraid to read the rest of the magazine if this is the kind of letter they think is worth publishing. Is there an audio magazine that isn't filled with this kind of thinking?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
duff
post Nov 10 2005, 20:10
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 18-July 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 2666



So sorry for the long delay. I didn't forget about this thread....

I have compiled a number of articles that provide anybody here resources and empirical support for the various claims David and I have been making. I claimed that there is a distinction between sensory and decision processes. This recent Nature article provides empirical support for this. Cognitive scientists have understood this distinction for decades, but here is recent evidence demonstrating the neurological basis for it. This is a fundamental issue in our criticism of the validity of ABX testing as the last word on ultimate differences in the auditory processing of lossy audio. Acoustic differences that could matter for a listenerís overall experience might not be audible.

Here are two articles that show the difference between decision processes linked to the discrimination of stimuli versus sensory processes that are affected when there is no discrimination. There is clear enhanced brain activity that occurs during the presentation of noisier stimuli even when it cannot be distinguished from a less noisy counterpart.

Effects of Low-Pass Noise Masking on Auditory Event-Related Potentials to Speech
The Effects of Decreased Audibility Produced by High-Pass Noise

Woodinside claimed that no filtering processes happen after the ear. This is definitely incorrect, as filtering processes do happen in the auditory cortex (one of the many analogues between auditory and visual processing), but Iíll assume he meant that the relevant filtering for audio codecs involves processes that happen only in the ear. This is fine, as thereís no reason to distinguish peripheral (inner and outer ear) processes from central processes (auditory cortex) when talking about metabolic costs of neural effort. The neurons must work harder (wherever this happens) to resolve the signal and encode it for later processing. And this does not deal with the likely possibility that the resulting representations might differ depending on stimulus quality (not a necessary feature of our argument).

There has been quite a bit of skepticism regarding the claim that compressed or degraded stimuli require more effort to process. I could cite a list of papers a mile long showing reaction time increases as a function of stimulus complexity (which heavily imply that processing difficulty increases), but there is also work showing that neurons respond to increased attention demands. Additionally, there seems to be specialized neural systems for resolving degraded signals, which in turn contribute to learning. These processes require effort, and have associated metabolic costs. This is exactly the sort of thing we have been arguing.

blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Nov 10 2005, 20:23
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (duff @ Nov 10 2005, 11:10 AM)
Woodinside claimed that no filtering processes happen after the ear. This is definitely incorrect, as filtering processes do happen in the auditory cortex (one of the many analogues between auditory and visual processing), but Iíll assume he meant that the relevant filtering for audio codecs involves processes that happen only in the ear. This is fine, as thereís no reason to distinguish peripheral (inner and outer ear) processes from central processes (auditory cortex) when talking about metabolic costs of neural effort. The neurons must work harder (wherever this happens) to resolve the signal and encode it for later processing. And this does not deal with the likely possibility that the resulting representations might differ depending on stimulus quality (not a necessary feature of our argument).
*


I'm sorry, but you're simply misusing the term "filtering" from the point of view of a signal-processing person. You are not, I trust, suggesting that the "filtering" that goes on in the CNS results in anything like the outcome of a linear filter, are you?

Psychologists often take words with specific meanings and add new meanings. Personally, I wish they'd use a different word, but in any case, the spatial capture is not a filter in any sense that I would normally use the word. I might use a filter to do spatial capture, that's a different problem altogether.

What you are, once again, ignoring, is that if there is NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE about a given distortion at the auditory nerve, you're arguing for something paranormal to happen later.

The evidence is in for outer hair cells, they depolarize at higher levels. So, there is no more effort going on in the basilar membrane, either. So, missing information means "no stimulus", ergo if anything it's "less effort" in the periphery. I think it's safe to say that the "cochlear amplifier" mechanism has gone FORD. (That's "found on road dead" for non-'mercans)

There is simply no evidence, no mechanism, and no non-sighted listener responses that in any fashion support this contention of "extra effort". None. That's what this all boils down to. One one side we see a bunch of suppositions, hypotheses, and speculation, based on the idea that there must be something wrong with DBT's because they don't observe some things that people think exist.

You show two sets of evidence for noise WELL OVER THRESHOLD. You're using data from a completely different, and irrelevant, situation in order to make your argument.

On the other side we see a century of work that shows that humans are easily fooled into thinking things exist when they don't, especially through the auditory system.

That is really what I see on the table here, supposition vs. a century of evidence. If there is something here, some extraordinary evidence for its existance, that addresses the known flaws of human perception, has to come forth.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Nov 10 2005, 20:24


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- mirrorsawlljk   What's the problem with double-blind testing?   Oct 19 2005, 03:03
- - bubka   some people can actually detect specific codecs by...   Oct 19 2005, 03:07
- - TheQat   QUOTE (mirrorsawlljk @ Oct 18 2005, 06:03 PM)...   Oct 19 2005, 03:27
|- - singaiya   QUOTE (TheQat @ Oct 18 2005, 06:27 PM)QUOTE (...   Oct 19 2005, 04:31
|- - Yaztromo   QUOTE (TheQat @ Oct 19 2005, 03:27 AM)Edit: H...   Oct 19 2005, 23:05
- - Tahnru   The closest thing I have seen to a legitimate crit...   Oct 19 2005, 04:29
- - Axon   The Audio Critic is notably pro-DBT.   Oct 19 2005, 07:06
|- - PoisonDan   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 19 2005, 08:06 AM)The Audio...   Oct 19 2005, 12:18
- - onthejazz   Interesting publication. I like it, too bad its no...   Oct 19 2005, 10:03
|- - Donunus   The writer of the letter in stereophile is incorre...   Oct 19 2005, 11:00
|- - Danimal   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 19 2005, 05:00 AM)The wr...   Oct 19 2005, 20:20
|- - Donunus   QUOTE (Danimal @ Oct 20 2005, 03:20 AM)QUOTE ...   Oct 20 2005, 01:51
|- - stephanV   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 20 2005, 02:51 AM)Well, ...   Oct 20 2005, 08:48
||- - bryant   QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 19 2005, 11:48 PM)QUOTE...   Oct 20 2005, 18:11
|||- - Pio2001   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 20 2005, 07:11 PM)To tell...   Oct 20 2005, 20:48
||||- - singaiya   Thanks for the papers, David. The first one is a g...   Oct 20 2005, 22:13
||||- - duff   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Oct 20 2005, 07:48 PM)QUOTE ...   Oct 20 2005, 22:52
||||- - stephanV   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 11:52 PM)It's ...   Oct 20 2005, 23:11
|||||- - duff   QUOTE Might be... or might be not. You can't c...   Oct 20 2005, 23:36
|||||- - KikeG   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 11:36 PM)I think i...   Oct 21 2005, 00:00
||||||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 20 2005, 09:00 PM)Also, ps...   Oct 21 2005, 00:15
||||||- - duff   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 20 2005, 11:00 PM)QUOTE (d...   Oct 21 2005, 00:29
||||||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 09:29 PM)I'm n...   Oct 21 2005, 01:03
||||||- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 04:29 PM)The audit...   Oct 21 2005, 05:56
||||||- - KikeG   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 12:29 AM)From the ...   Oct 21 2005, 08:10
|||||- - stephanV   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 12:36 AM)I think i...   Oct 21 2005, 08:34
|||||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 20 2005, 11:34 PM)Sorry...   Oct 21 2005, 21:19
||||- - krabapple   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 04:52 PM)QUOTE (Pi...   Oct 21 2005, 05:25
||||- - antz   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 10:52 PM)QUOTE (Pi...   Oct 21 2005, 13:39
||||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (antz @ Oct 21 2005, 04:39 AM)Seems to ...   Oct 21 2005, 21:20
|||- - stephanV   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 20 2005, 07:11 PM)It turn...   Oct 20 2005, 21:43
||- - Donunus   QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 20 2005, 03:48 PM)QUOTE...   Oct 21 2005, 04:10
||- - stephanV   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 21 2005, 05:10 AM)I do n...   Oct 21 2005, 08:43
||- - user   I recall, we have had successful abx tests even he...   Oct 21 2005, 09:20
||- - Pio2001   QUOTE (user @ Oct 21 2005, 10:20 AM)I recall,...   Oct 21 2005, 12:18
|||- - ff123   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Oct 21 2005, 03:18 AM)QUOTE ...   Oct 21 2005, 17:43
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (user @ Oct 21 2005, 03:20 AM)I recall,...   Oct 21 2005, 21:54
|- - Cartoon   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 20 2005, 02:51 AM)I do h...   Nov 12 2005, 13:40
- - KikeG   The "goosebump", emotional factor can be...   Oct 19 2005, 11:54
|- - Donunus   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 19 2005, 06:54 PM)The ...   Oct 19 2005, 12:06
|- - kjoonlee   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 19 2005, 08:06 PM)actual...   Oct 19 2005, 18:31
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Oct 19 2005, 09:31 AM)QUOTE...   Oct 21 2005, 01:27
||- - duff   QUOTE If you consider that we are wired to detect ...   Oct 21 2005, 01:38
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 20 2005, 04:38 PM)So we are...   Oct 21 2005, 21:15
||- - duff   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 21 2005, 08:15 PM)QU...   Oct 21 2005, 23:43
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 02:43 PM)When I sa...   Oct 22 2005, 08:00
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 19 2005, 01:06 PM)QUOTE ...   Oct 20 2005, 06:07
|- - Donunus   QUOTE (Lyx @ Oct 20 2005, 01:07 PM)QUOTE (Don...   Oct 20 2005, 16:51
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (Donunus @ Oct 20 2005, 05:51 PM)QUOTE ...   Oct 20 2005, 21:10
- - KikeG   Well, I think expectation effects in listening tes...   Oct 19 2005, 19:33
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 19 2005, 10:33 AM)Well, I ...   Oct 19 2005, 20:12
- - krabapple   QUOTE (mirrorsawlljk @ Oct 18 2005, 06:03 PM)...   Oct 19 2005, 20:06
- - Halcyon   There is nothing inherently bad about double blind...   Oct 19 2005, 20:29
- - ff123   Tests that try to distinguish very small effects *...   Oct 19 2005, 20:53
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ff123 @ Oct 19 2005, 11:53 AM)Tests th...   Oct 19 2005, 23:40
|- - ff123   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 19 2005, 02:40 PM)Inte...   Oct 20 2005, 05:38
- - fcmts   There is another problem similar to wine blind tes...   Oct 19 2005, 22:15
- - stephanV   I don't see how that is a problem. The goal of...   Oct 19 2005, 22:22
- - duff   One distinction relevant to this issue is the diff...   Oct 20 2005, 23:00
- - duff   QUOTE The opposite of "blind", I suppose...   Oct 21 2005, 01:27
- - Jun-Dai   I think it's pretty clear that double-blind te...   Oct 21 2005, 07:22
- - KikeG   For helping doing long-term, casual listening-like...   Oct 21 2005, 08:30
- - duff   QUOTE Seems to be a lack of understanding of somet...   Oct 21 2005, 16:48
|- - stephanV   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 05:48 PM)The reaso...   Oct 21 2005, 17:29
||- - duff   QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 21 2005, 04:29 PM)QUOTE...   Oct 21 2005, 20:06
||- - stephanV   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 09:06 PM)QUOTE Wh...   Oct 21 2005, 20:21
||- - bryant   QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 21 2005, 11:21 AM)QUOTE...   Oct 21 2005, 22:53
||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 21 2005, 07:53 PM)But I d...   Oct 21 2005, 23:12
||- - stephanV   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 21 2005, 11:53 PM)So, if ...   Oct 22 2005, 00:00
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 21 2005, 10:53 PM)What...   Oct 22 2005, 00:25
|||- - bryant   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 21 2005, 03:25 PM)I have...   Oct 22 2005, 23:39
|||- - ChiGung   just thinking -i do get all sorts of weird sensati...   Oct 23 2005, 00:34
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 21 2005, 01:53 PM)So, if ...   Oct 22 2005, 07:52
||- - bryant   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 21 2005, 10:52 PM)QU...   Oct 22 2005, 23:32
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 22 2005, 02:32 PM)The onl...   Oct 24 2005, 21:51
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 05:48 PM)QUOTE See...   Oct 21 2005, 17:35
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 10:48 AM)QUOTE See...   Oct 21 2005, 22:01
- - duff   QUOTE It sounds counterintuitive that my brain wou...   Oct 22 2005, 00:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 22 2005, 12:30 AM)Frankly, ...   Oct 22 2005, 00:47
||- - duff   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 21 2005, 11:47 PM)QUOTE ...   Oct 22 2005, 01:14
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 22 2005, 01:14 AM)The reduc...   Oct 22 2005, 01:26
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Oct 21 2005, 03:30 PM)Filtering...   Oct 22 2005, 08:07
- - ChiGung   A simplistic example - a sine wave of exactly 3122...   Oct 22 2005, 00:59
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 21 2005, 03:59 PM)A simp...   Oct 22 2005, 08:08
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 22 2005, 08:08 AM)QU...   Oct 22 2005, 14:09
- - ChiGung   -Sorry for flooding a bit there. Tasty subject   Oct 22 2005, 01:01
- - duff   So sorry for the long delay. I didn't forget a...   Nov 10 2005, 20:10
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Nov 10 2005, 11:10 AM)Woodinsid...   Nov 10 2005, 20:23
- - duff   I don't understand why you would want to maint...   Nov 11 2005, 00:41
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Nov 10 2005, 03:41 PM)Somehow, ...   Nov 11 2005, 21:52
|- - Pio2001   QUOTE (duff @ Nov 11 2005, 01:41 AM)The ABX p...   Nov 12 2005, 03:00
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Nov 11 2005, 06:00 PM)I can ...   Nov 12 2005, 09:33
|- - user   There aren't theoretical flaws with abx or DB ...   Nov 12 2005, 10:52
- - KikeG   Sorry, you still have provided no evidence that wh...   Nov 11 2005, 14:34
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (KikeG @ Nov 11 2005, 05:34 AM)Sorry, y...   Nov 11 2005, 21:56
|- - Pio2001   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 11 2005, 10:56 PM)Su...   Nov 12 2005, 02:32
- - duff   Let's back up a moment... There are at least ...   Nov 11 2005, 18:37
- - KikeG   About the first point, your degraded examples are ...   Nov 11 2005, 19:57
- - duff   QUOTE Well, if it's inaudible, there's a g...   Nov 11 2005, 21:19
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (duff @ Nov 11 2005, 12:19 PM)In other ...   Nov 11 2005, 21:59
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2014 - 05:55