Literature DB >> 20139466

On the choice of adequate randomization ranges for limiting the use of unwanted cues in same-different, dual-pair, and oddity tasks.

Huanping Dai1, Christophe Micheyl.   

Abstract

A major concern when designing a psychophysical experiment is that participants may use a stimulus feature (cue) other than that intended by the experimenter. One way to avoid this problem is to apply random variations to the corresponding feature across stimulus presentations to make the unwanted cue unreliable. An important question facing experimenters who use this randomization (roving) technique is how large the randomization range should be to ensure that the participants cannot achieve a certain proportion correct by using the unwanted cue, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary interference of the randomization with task performance. Previous researchers have provided formulas for the selection of adequate randomization ranges in yes-no and multiple-alternative forced choice tasks. In this article, we provide figures and tables that can be used to select randomization ranges that are better suited to experiments involving a same-different, dual-pair, or oddity task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20139466      PMCID: PMC3018147          DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.2.538

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  49 in total

1.  Level discrimination of sinusoids as a function of duration and level for fixed-level, roving-level, and across-frequency conditions.

Authors:  A J Oxenham; S Buus
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Sources of variation in profile analysis. II. Component spacing, dynamic changes, and roving level.

Authors:  W R Drennan; C S Watson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The multiple dual-pair method.

Authors:  Benoît Rousseau; Daniel M Ennis
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-08

4.  Fine structure of hearing threshold and loudness perception.

Authors:  Manfred Mauermann; Glenis R Long; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Limiting unwanted cues via random rove applied to the yes-no and multiple-alternative forced choice paradigms.

Authors:  Huanping Dai; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Intensity perception. VII. Further data on roving-level discrimination and the resolution and bias edge effects.

Authors:  J E Berliner; N I Durlach; L D Braida
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The psychophysics of categorical perception.

Authors:  N A Macmillan; H L Kaplan; C D Creelman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Intensity perception. IV. Resolution in roving-level discrimination.

Authors:  J E Berliner; N I Durlach
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Frequency discrimination of random-amplitude tones.

Authors:  G B Henning
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1966-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Enhanced frequency discrimination near the hearing loss cut-off: a consequence of central auditory plasticity induced by cochlear damage?

Authors:  Hung Thai-Van; Christophe Micheyl; Brian C J Moore; Lionel Collet
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2003-07-07       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  12 in total

1.  Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Ward R Drennan; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Musical intervals and relative pitch: frequency resolution, not interval resolution, is special.

Authors:  Josh H McDermott; Michael V Keebler; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Perceptual grouping affects pitch judgments across time and frequency.

Authors:  Elizabeth M O Borchert; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Perceptual interactions between electrodes using focused and monopolar cochlear stimulation.

Authors:  Jeremy Marozeau; Hugh J McDermott; Brett A Swanson; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-06

5.  The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; Hugh J McDermott; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Intensity Discrimination and Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Natalie Rickard; Katherine Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-17

7.  Separating the contributions of primary and unwanted cues in psychophysical studies.

Authors:  Huanping Dai; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Effect of level on spectral-ripple detection threshold for listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss.

Authors:  Erik J Jorgensen; Ryan W McCreery; Benjamin J Kirby; Marc Brennan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  A method to dynamically control unwanted loudness cues when measuring amplitude modulation detection in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Sandy Oba; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 2.390

10.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues.

Authors:  Matthew Fraser; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.