IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Overcoming the Perception Problem
item
post Oct 8 2012, 19:21
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 7-August 12
Member No.: 102085



I've noticed an increase in forum debate about the validity of transferring the credibility of ABX from the physical domain to perception testing. I'm wondering if anyone has found a way past this issue?

The purpose of blind testing is to subtract subjectivity from the effect of - for instance - a drug trial: to assess a medication's impact on a subject's physiology with interference from their psychology. But what about when the purpose of a test is subjective perception? How do we then subtract the effect of the method to arrive at a meaningful outcome?

While we would like to remove expectation bias from the equation, if the conditions under which this is done also change the perceptive state of the listener, the test is invalidated as surely as they would be by tissue sample contamination.

Recent large scale public experiments by Lotto Labs (http://www.lottolab.org/) demonstrated that perception acuity is dramatically altered by test conditions: for instance, that time contraction/dilation effects are experienced when exposed to colour fields. In one experiment, two groups were asked to perform an identical fine-grained visual acuity test. One group was pre-emptively 'manipulated' by filling in a questionnaire designed to lower their self-esteem. This 'less confident' group consistently performed worse on the test that the unmanipulated one: their acuity was significantly impaired by a subtle psychological 'tweak' that wasn't even in effect during the test.

It seems undeniable that the much grosser differences between the mental states of sighted and 'blind' listening - considered generously - cast serious doubt on the results thus obtained.

The harder line is that blind perception tests are a fundamental misappropriation of methodology. In psychology it's axiomatic that for many experiments the subject must be unaware of the nature of the test (see Milgram). If a normalised state is not cunningly contrived, results are at best only indicative of what a subject thinks they should do; at worst, entirely invalid.

Probing hearing, the point is that a test must not change the mental state of the listener.

The contrast between outcomes of sighted and listening tests is as stark as those demonstrating suggestibility (see McGurk), but giving too much credence to such an intrinsically unsound experimental approach (not spotting this difficulty) does no favours to our credibility at all.

The only way past the dilemma seems to be direct mechanical examination of the mind during 'normal' listening to explore why the experiences of sighted and unsighted listening differ. This seems to be an interesting question.

In the meantime, the idea that - despite the method problem - results from blind ABX are valid is at least supported by the majority of data derived from home testing, Audio DiffMaker et al, so we needn't get hung up on it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
greynol
post Oct 9 2012, 04:54
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



@item:
Perhaps you could share with us a little about who you are so that we can put your point of view into proper perspective.

This site has TOS #8 in place to keep the signal to noise ratio high. As has been aptly pointed out, sighted tests provide absolutely no guarantee of reliability, whereas positive double-blind tests do. The only concern on the table that could possibly have any validity (I am being generous) is that double-blind testing might reduce the sensitivity of the person taking the test. This is perfectly fine since a failed DBT is not used as universal proof that two things must sound the same which is generally where those arguing on behalf of placebophiles get tripped up. FWIW, as a professional tester I can tell you that I actually pay closer attention to detail when I am consciously involved in a test, despite DBT skeptics and snake oil salesmen telling me that I can't or don't.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 9 2012, 04:56


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
item
post Oct 9 2012, 11:42
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 7-August 12
Member No.: 102085



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) *
@item:
Perhaps you could share with us a little about who you are so that we can put your point of view into proper perspective.


What do you mean by 'proper perspective'? Am I looking at an ad hominem warmup or a chat-up line?

QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) *
This site has TOS #8 in place to keep the signal to noise ratio high. As has been aptly pointed out, sighted tests provide absolutely no guarantee of reliability, whereas positive double-blind tests do. The only concern on the table that could possibly have any validity (I am being generous) is that double-blind testing might reduce the sensitivity of the person taking the test. This is perfectly fine since a failed DBT is not used as universal proof that two things must sound the same which is generally where those arguing on behalf of placebophiles get tripped up.


Positive DBT is inherently cast-iron. The problem is that negative results equally indict the efficacy of the method, and that DBT perception tests are anathema: they generate results with poor resolution: they conform suspiciously well to the 'bad test' model: ie, they generate positives for gross phenomena but fail to recognise fine-grained distinctions. Wrong sieve size is a plausible diagnosis. Given that the test is misappropriated from a different domain and therefore - by definition - crudely tampers with its objective, this isn't surprising.

QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) *
FWIW, as a professional tester I can tell you that I actually pay closer attention to detail when I am consciously involved in a test, despite DBT skeptics and snake oil salesmen telling me that I can't or don't.

That's exactly the point: test conditions create an environment in which you have to 'pay closer attention' - in reality, listen in an entirely different way, disorientated and deprived of cues. For a psych test, that's inadmissable.

Again, the purpose of DBT is to remove subjectivity as a factor. It can't legitimately be applied with any degree of precision to a study of subjectivity. Negative DBT results in the physiological domain are always open to question, but in this domain they aren't even interesting, and it's an embarrassment to the cause to see such faith placed in them.

This post has been edited by item: Oct 9 2012, 11:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 9 2012, 22:07
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 03:42) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) *
@item:
Perhaps you could share with us a little about who you are so that we can put your point of view into proper perspective.

What do you mean by 'proper perspective'? Am I looking at an ad hominem warmup or a chat-up line?]

Let's just focus about the first part of my question and not worry about the second part.

Please share with us a little about who you are and who you might represent.

QUOTE
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) *
FWIW, as a professional tester I can tell you that I actually pay closer attention to detail when I am consciously involved in a test, despite DBT skeptics and snake oil salesmen telling me that I can't or don't.

That's exactly the point: test conditions create an environment in which you have to 'pay closer attention' - in reality, listen in an entirely different way, disorientated and deprived of cues.

Disorientated and deprived of cues? You appear not to realize that double-blind testing can (and often does!) provide for the listener to audition the subjects/samples that are known as they are known. To elaborate on the part that you quoted, during testing I pay closer attention to details explicitly to listen for differences. If I am listening casually, I do just that, which is to say relax and enjoy. I have no doubt that my casual listening is done so with less acuity. To put it another way, when was the last time someone accused you of paying close attention because you forgot something you were told and were expected to remember?

If part of my enjoyment has to do with knowing that my equipment or sample is XYZ then that is my business. If I think I am actually perceiving something differently as a result I respect the forum and refrain from discussing it unless I can comply with its rules.

QUOTE
For a psych test, that's inadmissable.
Perhaps, perhaps not; I really don't care either way.

QUOTE
Again, the purpose of DBT is to remove subjectivity as a factor. It can't legitimately be applied with any degree of precision to a study of subjectivity.
...which is nonsense and another obvious display of ignorance. MUSHRA is well accepted as a double blind test that provides for subjective grading.

QUOTE
Negative DBT results in the physiological domain are always open to question, but in this domain they aren't even interesting, and it's an embarrassment to the cause to see such faith placed in them.
According to you. Personally I am really not interested in counting angels dancing on the head of a pin in order to describe the possibility of a difference when there exists no verified objective test data to confirm it. This is especially the case when the difference is characterized as "night-and-day."

Back on the idea of perceiving differences as a result of having a-priori knowledge of what is being heard, I don't think anyone with enough understanding is denying its power to foster truly tangible differences in the mind. We simply aren't interested in reading about them here. There are plenty of other places where you can indulge yourself.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 11 2012, 16:23


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- item   Overcoming the Perception Problem   Oct 8 2012, 19:21
- - Soap   You appear to be confused. Despite common shortha...   Oct 8 2012, 19:38
- - item   To rephrase: what, in any trial, is blind testing ...   Oct 8 2012, 19:52
|- - Soap   QUOTE (item @ Oct 8 2012, 14:52) To rephr...   Oct 8 2012, 19:59
|- - item   QUOTE (Soap @ Oct 8 2012, 19:59) QUOTE (i...   Oct 8 2012, 23:32
|- - item   Part of Beau Lotto's 'Public Perception pr...   Oct 9 2012, 00:30
||- - Porcus   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 01:30) Part of ...   Oct 9 2012, 10:53
||- - item   QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 9 2012, 10:53) You ca...   Oct 9 2012, 12:23
||- - Porcus   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 13:23) This for...   Oct 9 2012, 16:04
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (item @ Oct 8 2012, 18:32) Partly, ...   Oct 9 2012, 03:51
|- - item   QUOTE (item @ Oct 8 2012, 18:32) Although...   Oct 9 2012, 11:14
- - DVDdoug   I just don't see how making a good scientific ...   Oct 9 2012, 00:59
- - greynol   @item: Perhaps you could share with us a little ab...   Oct 9 2012, 04:54
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 05:54) a fai...   Oct 9 2012, 09:57
|- - item   QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 04:54) @item...   Oct 9 2012, 11:42
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 11:42) Positive...   Oct 9 2012, 14:15
||- - item   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 9 2012, 14:15) QUO...   Oct 9 2012, 14:37
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 14:37) Deprived...   Oct 9 2012, 17:43
|||- - item   Sorry - been away, but lots of noise (most - fasci...   Oct 19 2012, 17:34
||- - dhromed   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 15:37) 'Kno...   Oct 9 2012, 19:11
|- - greynol   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 03:42) QUOTE (g...   Oct 9 2012, 22:07
|- - item   QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 9 2012, 22:07) @item...   Oct 19 2012, 18:33
- - hlloyge   The only people I know of to shun DBT method of te...   Oct 9 2012, 12:35
|- - item   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 9 2012, 12:35) The o...   Oct 9 2012, 13:25
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 14:25) The sole...   Oct 9 2012, 13:54
||- - item   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 9 2012, 13:54) The o...   Oct 9 2012, 14:09
|- - Canar   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 05:25) I think ...   Oct 9 2012, 17:09
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 08:25) The sole...   Oct 10 2012, 01:25
|- - item   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 10 2012, 01:25) QU...   Oct 19 2012, 18:45
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (item @ Oct 19 2012, 19:45) QUOTE (...   Oct 19 2012, 19:22
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (item @ Oct 19 2012, 18:45) Certain...   Oct 22 2012, 12:53
- - aethelberht   What I can perhaps maybe possibly gather from your...   Oct 9 2012, 13:17
|- - item   QUOTE (aethelberht @ Oct 9 2012, 13:17) W...   Oct 9 2012, 14:01
|- - aethelberht   "A negative means - equally - either a) the t...   Oct 9 2012, 14:14
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 09:01) DBT is d...   Oct 9 2012, 14:53
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (item @ Oct 9 2012, 15:01) Abstract...   Oct 10 2012, 21:04
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 10 2012, 22:04) If y...   Oct 11 2012, 14:20
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 11 2012, 15:20) Ehem ...   Oct 12 2012, 14:26
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 12 2012, 15:26) QUOT...   Oct 12 2012, 15:04
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 12 2012, 16:04) Not n...   Oct 12 2012, 22:14
|- - greynol   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 12 2012, 14:14) I am...   Oct 13 2012, 14:25
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 13 2012, 15:25) QUOT...   Oct 14 2012, 13:35
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (hlloyge @ Oct 14 2012, 14:35) Yes,...   Oct 14 2012, 23:31
|- - hlloyge   QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 15 2012, 00:31) QUOTE...   Oct 16 2012, 09:54
- - Porcus   While I certainly agree that putting humans in a l...   Oct 10 2012, 13:09
- - 2Bdecided   It's like The Princess and the Pea. Audiophile...   Oct 11 2012, 11:58
- - skamp   If ABXing negatively alters one's ability to h...   Oct 11 2012, 14:28
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (skamp @ Oct 11 2012, 09:28) If ABX...   Oct 11 2012, 18:24
|- - mzil   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 11 2012, 13:24) QU...   Oct 15 2012, 17:14
|- - krabapple   You're right that different terms apply when w...   Oct 15 2012, 20:51
- - greynol   I believe our skeptic has flown the coop.   Oct 11 2012, 16:17
- - dhromed   Not everyone is as much a netizen as most of us. P...   Oct 11 2012, 17:05
- - googlebot   While the OP's reasoning and claimed inference...   Oct 11 2012, 21:44
|- - [JAZ]   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 11 2012, 22:44) Do...   Oct 11 2012, 22:37
||- - bandpass   QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Oct 11 2012, 22:37...   Oct 12 2012, 06:44
|- - sld   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 12 2012, 04:44) Lo...   Oct 12 2012, 03:38
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 11 2012, 16:44) Wh...   Oct 12 2012, 06:59
||- - googlebot   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 12 2012, 07:59) Ex...   Oct 12 2012, 21:44
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 12 2012, 21:44) Th...   Oct 12 2012, 21:51
|||- - googlebot   QUOTE (Nick.C @ Oct 12 2012, 22:51) Is th...   Oct 12 2012, 21:58
|||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 12 2012, 21:58) Ye...   Oct 12 2012, 22:21
|||- - googlebot   I do not see how calling the phenomenon "prec...   Oct 12 2012, 23:43
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 12 2012, 16:44) QU...   Oct 13 2012, 22:05
|- - 2Bdecided   @Porcus: QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 11 2012, 21...   Oct 12 2012, 10:08
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (googlebot @ Oct 11 2012, 16:44) Co...   Oct 16 2012, 15:51
- - greynol   I would be careful not to limit the word perceive....   Oct 11 2012, 22:58
- - greynol   I extract all the joy I could ever need from simpl...   Oct 12 2012, 06:11
- - Porcus   Among my friends, we have been blind testing ... h...   Oct 12 2012, 09:30
- - dhromed   But is there a problem?   Oct 12 2012, 22:12
- - AndyH-ha   The sighted test difference is not coming from the...   Oct 13 2012, 03:32
|- - greynol   QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Oct 12 2012, 19:32...   Oct 13 2012, 14:16
- - Nick.C   @googlebot: You are now allowing the results to be...   Oct 13 2012, 09:43
- - 2Bdecided   I think Googlebot is making a valid philosophical ...   Oct 15 2012, 12:20
|- - pisymbol   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 15 2012, 07:20) I ...   Oct 15 2012, 13:48
- - skamp   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 15 2012, 18:14) B. The ...   Oct 15 2012, 22:49
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (skamp @ Oct 15 2012, 17:49) What g...   Oct 16 2012, 03:58
- - greynol   There are ways of cheating to get positive ABX res...   Oct 15 2012, 22:57
- - mzil   [Trying to bring this back on topic] There is not...   Oct 16 2012, 04:32
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 15 2012, 20:32) [Trying...   Oct 16 2012, 04:33
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 16 2012, 05:32) Here...   Oct 16 2012, 06:19
- - mzil   Please enlighten me. I am not a scientist nor have...   Oct 16 2012, 04:39
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 15 2012, 23:39) Please ...   Oct 16 2012, 22:28
|- - mzil   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 16 2012, 17:28) QU...   Oct 17 2012, 00:30
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 16 2012, 19:30) So even...   Oct 17 2012, 03:03
||- - mzil   QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 16 2012, 22:03) QUO...   Oct 17 2012, 05:35
||- - saratoga   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 17 2012, 00:35) Sorry, ...   Oct 17 2012, 05:43
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 16 2012, 19:30) QUOTE (...   Oct 17 2012, 04:53
||- - mzil   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 16 2012, 23:53) QU...   Oct 17 2012, 06:36
||- - mzil   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 16 2012, 23:53) Do...   Oct 17 2012, 07:22
|||- - mzil   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 17 2012, 02:22) QUOTE (...   Oct 18 2012, 19:16
||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 16 2012, 23:53) Do...   Oct 18 2012, 14:04
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 17 2012, 01:30) QUOTE R...   Oct 17 2012, 18:51
- - knutinh   Self-reporting about ones mental state surely carr...   Oct 16 2012, 21:02
- - greynol   Let me get this straight, the subconscious mind is...   Oct 17 2012, 05:28
- - mzil   Thanks, Porcus. I'll check it out.   Oct 17 2012, 20:14
- - krabapple   It's best to be careful drawing conclusions fr...   Oct 19 2012, 17:53
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 19 2012, 17:53) It...   Oct 22 2012, 12:49
- - AndyH-ha   I could be missing the point, or dozens of them, b...   Oct 19 2012, 20:56
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Oct 19 2012, 15:56...   Oct 19 2012, 21:30
- - AndyH-ha   My point was not that many reported tests involve ...   Oct 19 2012, 22:31
2 Pages V   1 2 >


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: 19th December 2014 - 11:59