↓ Skip to main content

Onset-Duration Matching of Acoustic Stimuli Revisited: Conventional Arithmetic vs. Proposed Geometric Measures of Accuracy and Precision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Onset-Duration Matching of Acoustic Stimuli Revisited: Conventional Arithmetic vs. Proposed Geometric Measures of Accuracy and Precision
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Björn Friedrich, Peter Heil

Abstract

Onsets of acoustic stimuli are salient transients and are relevant in humans for the perception of music and speech. Previous studies of onset-duration discrimination and matching focused on whether onsets are perceived categorically. In this study, we address two issues. First, we revisit onset-duration matching and measure, for 79 conditions, how accurately and precisely human listeners can adjust the onset duration of a comparison stimulus to subjectively match that of a standard stimulus. Second, we explore measures for quantifying performance in this and other matching tasks. The conventional measures of accuracy and precision are defined by arithmetic descriptive statistics and the Euclidean distance function on the real numbers. We propose novel measures based on geometric descriptive statistics and the log-ratio distance function, the Euclidean distance function on the positive-real numbers. Only these properly account for the fact that the magnitude of onset durations, like the magnitudes of most physical quantities, can attain only positive real values. The conventional (arithmetic) measures possess a convexity bias that yields errors that grow with the width of the distribution of matches. This convexity bias leads to misrepresentations of the constant error and could even imply the existence of perceptual illusions where none exist. This is not so for the proposed (geometric) measures. We collected up to 68 matches from a given listener for each condition (about 34,000 matches in total) and examined inter-listener variability and the effects of onset duration, plateau duration, sound level, carrier, and restriction of the range of adjustable comparison stimuli on measures of accuracy and precision. Results obtained with the conventional measures generally agree with those reported in the literature. The variance across listeners is highly heterogeneous for the conventional measures but is homogeneous for the proposed measures. Furthermore, the proposed measures show that listeners tend to under- rather than to overestimate the onset duration of the comparison stimuli. They further reveal effects of the stimulus carrier on accuracy and precision which are missed by the conventional measures. Our results have broad implications for psychophysical studies that use arithmetic measures to quantify performance when geometric measures should instead be used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 14%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,251,146
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,481
of 30,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,975
of 420,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#202
of 420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 420 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.