HydrogenAudio

Disclaimer: This is not a defense of snake oil.

Back in the early 2000's two researchers, Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche, published two analyses of clinical studies in which placebos had been employed and found that there was no observer-reported improvement in conditions where placebos had been used. By observer-reported they meant objective symptoms that could be measured by third parties, like doctors. This was set in opposition to patient-reported symptoms like pain and nausea, that cannot be objectively measured. For these patient-reported symptons some placebo effects had been found, but they were indistinguishable from reporting bias. Basically the only place where placebo effect was to be found was in the patients' eagerness to please and doctors and in their general politeness.

These studies were criticized on methodological grounds, and, since I'm layman, I just dropped the matter. But recently I've found out that the same researchers did a new analysis in 2010 which addressed these criticisms and reached pretty much the same conclusions. Here's the summary:

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve many clinical conditions. However, most reports on effects of placebos are based on unreliable studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment.

We studied the effect of placebo treatments by reviewing 202 trials comparing placebo treatment with no treatment covering 60 healthcare problems. In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients, such as pain. However, the effect on pain varied from large to non-existent, even in well-conducted trials. Variations in the effect of placebo was partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted, the type of placebo used, and whether patients were informed that the trial involved placebo.

And here's a link to the abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002...62808AE1.d01t02 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=1BFC6C744CD216733045A82D62808AE1.d01t02)

They were talking about placebo effect in Medicine, of course, but we can wonder whether these findings don't also invalidate the metaphorical usage of the expression, placebo effect, in audio matters.

When patients report that their pain has diminished after eating a sugar pill they're just trying to please their doctors, or perhaps they're too polite to say that the treatment was completely ineffective, and prefer to say that there was a little improvement. Might it be the case that some audio journalists, when they fail to notice any difference between audio equipment, refuse to say so out of sheer politeness and a good-hearted desire to preserve the feelings of their patrons and advertisers?

Ya kinda got things twisted in a knot there and are drawing conclusions 180 degrees out of phase with the paper.

The paper is saying that the placebo leads to reports of subjective changes.  Changes which can't be objectively measured (or at best weakly).  But you ask the (opposite) question of "does this possibly mean that placebo leads to (incorrect) reports of no subjective changes?"

This paper is 110% in support of the "common wisdom" here.  Placebo effects lead to reports of (audio) differences where none can be measured by outside objective observers.

All this paper shows which is contrary to popular belief is that placebo effects (in medicine) might not be leading to objectively measured changes in patient outcome.  NOT that the placebo effect fails to convince the subjective opinions of the placebo "eater".

NOT that the placebo effect fails to convince the subjective opinions of the placebo "eater".

I believe the two previous analyses were clearer on this point, but just to avoid confusions, let me quote from the 2010 abstract:

it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important.

Read that as an academic euphemism for: Placebo can't be distinguished from biased reporting. I interpreted "biased reporting" as desire to please and general politeness for simplicity's sake. Of course there are other forms of biased reporting. Now, logically, you can't dismiss the possibility of placebo effect really existing in patient-reported symptoms. All you can say is that the evidence doesn't allow you to distinguish that possibility from another, namely that the patients' have a desire to please and are generally polite. Once that's established, which of the following two explanation is more likely based on all that's known about human health:

1) There's a miracle cure based on the power of the mind that sometimes relieves subjetive symptoms.
2) What used to be called placebo effect was really just biased reporting.

I'm obviously sticking with 2). To be clear: this is my interpretation, the analysis doesn't take this last step.

That is not the proper conclusion.  As I said you're 180 out of phase.

You're reading into their words.  They are saying that the objective measurable effect of placebo on the patient can not be clinically distinguished from biased reporting.  That is far from saying it IS biased reporting. 

And of course amongst your two explanations #1 is a straw man nicely set up to be knocked down by your own #2.

The actual, supported, and simplest is #3:  The patient believes they experience something, and report it even though objective measurements don't support their belief.


The irony here, IMHO, is the only biased reporting is coming from you.

Let's replace 1) with the following definition from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn...acebo%20effect: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=placebo%20effect:)

1*)S: (n) placebo effect - any effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo; the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental drug was supposed to do

Once we've accepted that patient-reported placebo is indistinguishable from biased reporting, which of two is more likely, based on all that's known about human health:

1*) A patient's faith or preconceptions in a treatment or drug can produce beneficial changes in subjective symptoms.
2) What used to be called placebo effect was just biased reporting all along.

I'm still sticking with 2). I repeat: this is not reporting, this is not taken from the paper, it's my own inference.

EDIT: Again, this is not a logically valid inference, which is why the paper didn't make it. All they could claim was that the options were indistinguishable. But I believe that those of us who are not bound by the absolute rigors of Science can be a litte freer with our reasoning. Logically I'm not allowed to claim that Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but I still feel justified in believing that it doesn't.

So am I now to suspect all the people who say FLAC sounds inferior to wave are only doing so in order to be polite; even when they come here and do it?

So am I now to suspect all the people who say FLAC sounds inferior to wave are only doing so in order to be polite; even when they come here and do it?

I'd rather suspect that they already believe that wave is superior "without question, it's obvious, everyone knows it for reasons x, y and z", so that even though they can't hear any difference, they would rather claim that they can, following the classic principle laid on The Emperor's New Clothes. Most of the times they might be really hearing diffrences as a result of an improper comparison (i.e. not volume matched, flawed FLAC compression, and maybe even codec problems).

Codec problems that result in something that still plays?!?

You're grasping at straws.

In the meantime you've failed to take into account what has been documented and understood about the way in which humans can be biased into hearing things that never existed.  How do you plan on resolving the McGurk effect, for instance?  How about all the failed ABX tests where the person submitting them thought they did indeed validate their claims that there were audible differences?

You're grasping at straws.

I don't think I have the burden of explaining why they do what they do, just that, whatever the reason, it might not be placebo effect. Those suggestions were meant to be an open-ended list of possibilities, I'm sure technically savvy individuals could add other options.

In the meantime you've failed to take into account what has been documented and understood about the way in which humans can be biased into hearing things that never existed.  How do you plan on resolving the McGurk effect, for instance?

Greynol, if you read my original post carefully you will see that I make no claims about audio placebo, but I ask whether perhaps they could be re-examined in light of developments regarding medical placebo. It's certainly possible that people do hear what they think that they're hearing, but until recently I believed that in some circunstances people could be cured by eating sugar pills. If the last one can be false, don't you think it would be interesting to at least consider that the first might be false as well? And remember that there were a myriad studies "proving" that medical placebo was real, but it turned out that the interpretion of these studies was incorrect.

How about all the failed ABX tests where the person submitting them thought they did indeed validate their claims that there were audible differences?

But how can we know what was really going on in their heads? All we have to go on is what they say, and if what they say can be wrong in more important matters like health care, might it not be wrong also about audio? Again, this is just an alternative suggestion that whatever makes them make their claims, it might not be placebo effect.

Whatever else may be possible (pink elephants silping tea in orbit around the planet Uranus?) the McGurk effect does in fact show that people can and do hear something that doesn't actually exist, TYVM.

might it not be wrong also about audio?

That you don't know enough about it and are skeptical is hardly enough to warrant tossing a substantial body of research in favor of your false equivalency.

FWIW, many people here who accept that humans can be biased into hearing differences that do not exist do not believe that sugar pills work on pain.  These are not mutually exclusive.  Your failure to recognize this doesn't grant the possibility for you to be right.

Quote from: gnusmas997 on 2013-06-10 12:12:57

might it not be wrong also about audio?

That you don't know enough about it and are skeptical is hardly enough to warrant tossing a substantial body of research in favor of your false equivalency.

FWIW, many people here who accept that humans can be biased into hearing differences that do not exist do not believe that sugar pills work on pain.  These are not mutually exclusive.  Your failure to recognize this shouldn't be used to suggest there is a possibility that you could be right.

But might it be enough to suggest that a friendly discussion take place, among willing participants, in an internet discussion forum, where arguments that support the existence of audio placebo effect might be offered?

And maybe it might also suggest that a new popular expression be adopted for the phenomenon now known as placebo effect in audio.

BTW, I actually found your reference to the McGurk effect interesting so I did some homework. So far as I could see it's different from placebo effect because it relies on an actual visual cue, whereas placebo effect in audio could be based exclusively on beliefs or desires. The McGurk effect remains even if the subjects know what's happening. Does the same happen for placebo effect? (i.e. do audio objectivists still think they hear differences that they know won't be found in an ABX test?)

Yes.

Yes.

Is that based on personal experience or is there a reference I could look up?

You may look it up.  Please don't ask me to conduct your research for you.

You may look it up.  Please don't ask me to conduct your research for you.

it still remains the case that audio placebo effect disappears during a double-blind trial but the McGurk effect remains. That alone is sufficient for me to conclude that they're not necessarily connected, one might be true and the other false.

ABX does not remove the ability for someone to affix differences that do not actually exist to what is "heard" during testing.  Instead it serves to randomize the occurence of those "differences".

ABX does not remove the ability for someone to affix differences that do not actually exist to what is "heard" during testing.  Instead it serves to randomize the occurence of those "differences".

But the differences become statistically insignificant so they "disappear" from the conclusion. The different sounds heard in the the McGurk effect don't "disappear" from the conclusion. Even after ramdonization and the application of a double-blind protocol, researchers can find a statistically significant McGurk effect. The contrary is true for the placebo effect in audio.

Correct.

This would be akin to asking the question "If the listener is told that he may be listening to a superior system, does that make it truly sound better to him, or is he just saying that it sounds better to please the tester because he really can't tell the difference"?

The only implication this study has on the way we test for audible differences is that we have no assurance that the person performing the test is being honest

I've read plenty of discussions where this has been taken into consideration in one way or another, so this is hardly a new wrinkle.

Besides, dishonesty during the test is not going to trend towards a decreased p-value.

it still remains the case that audio placebo effect disappears during a double-blind trial but the McGurk effect remains. That alone is sufficient for me to conclude that they're not necessarily connected, one might be true and the other false.

The interaction known as the McGurk effect survives the double-blind trias, and this fact is verification that there is an interaction between our auditory and visual systems.

If anything, this highlights the need for ABX testing of supposed audio differences.  If our visual system can influence our auditory perception, this suggests that other brain functions may also influence our audio perception.  What we expect to hear can influence how we hear, and what we hear. 

ABX tests provide a good tool for eliminating biases caused by placebo effects.

Prior posts is this thread identified 3 possible placebo effects:

1) "A patient's faith or preconceptions produce a beneficial effect."

Audio analogy: What we expect to hear has an influence on what we actually hear.  For example; our expectations may cause us to focus on a particular sound, instrument, or band of frequencies, and we actually notice things that we had not heard before.

2) "Biased reporting"

Audio analogy: We claim to hear a difference that we do not really hear (for a variety of reasons).

3) "The patient believes they experience something even though objective measurements don't support their belief."

Audio analogy: A is identical to B, but listener becomes convinced that A sounds different than B.


All three of the above placebo effects can be eliminated with a double-blind ABX test.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the ABX test is not perfect.  Any ABX test will cause some disruption to the listening experience.  It has been established that the McGurk effect can be diminished if the subject is engaged in tactile tasks while listening to the audio and viewing the video.  The distraction caused by the tactile task seems to diminish the McGurk effect.

Similarly, the tactile and visual tasks, and mental stress, associated with an ABX test may produce some minimal reduction in a subject's auditory acuity.  The distractions caused by an ABX test may obscure some small audible differences, but the ABX test is very effective for eliminating placebo biases.  ABX tests should be conducted in a way that minimizes the mental distractions caused by the test itself.

This would be akin to asking the question "If the listener is told that he may be listening to a superior system, does that make it truly sound better to him, or is he just saying that it sounds better to please the tester because he really can't tell the difference"?

Page 13, right before the “Strengths and weaknesses” heading:
[blockquote]Larger effects of placebo were also found in the trials that falsely informed patients that the study compared two active treatments with no-treatment.[/blockquote]
So yes, it helps if you can pre-convince the patient.



(And there is no surprise to spot confirmation bias in this thread either, by the way.)

Page 13, right before the “Strengths and weaknesses” heading:
[blockquote]Larger effects of placebo were also found in the trials that falsely informed patients that the study compared two active treatments with no-treatment.[/blockquote]

Ouch.

This would be akin to asking the question "If the listener is told that he may be listening to a superior system, does that make it truly sound better to him, or is he just saying that it sounds better to please the tester because he really can't tell the difference"?

We presume that we have a proper ABX test so we can conclude that no objective difference exists between A and B. Then we ask the preceding question, but let's leave the listener's motivations open - maybe it's just another instance of naked-emperor-disorder, maybe not, whatever it is, the listener doesn't really perceive a difference but still claims that he does.

From that, isn't your quote a perfectly legitimate question? I was surprised by the generally hostile reaction to the thread because if there's no real difference, not even subjective difference, between the two samples, then at least one of the arguments that subjectivists have used to reject ABXing would become untenable, namely that they can really hear the difference at home but not under "laboratory" conditions.

This would also be consistent with the suspicions voiced by some objectivists that some audiophile journalists and manufacturers are not completelly honest in their claims.

In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients...

So, a placebo is an ineffective form of treatment, but some patients perceive an improvement!      Is that surprising?   

Exactly what we see in audio!  Is that surprising?

This issue at hand is that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that patients who are aware that they were given the placebo, or rather did not recognize any improvement in their condition, are honest in reporting it.

If you feel that a passed ABX is a valid way to demonstrating that any particular individual can distinguish a difference between two specific things at any particular time and that caution needs to be exercised when drawing conclusions from a negative result, the concerns raised about the study don't have any bearing.

To use it to claim that there is no such thing as placebo effect in hearing was more than just a bit of a stretch, however.

PS: I did not change the title of the discussion, though I will openly admit that it caused me to have a negative bias when entering it.  Had the OP just added a question mark at the end ("Placebo effect does not exist?"), I imagine things would have gone a bit differently.  Instead it was presented as a bold claim that is simply and patently false.  Maybe the intention was to be controversial in order to attract attention.  The problem is that it isn't controversial, at least not amongst the people who are knowledgeable on the subject, from what I can tell.

Here's from the 2004 analysis by the same authors, Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment.:

We found no evidence of a generally large effect of placebo interventions. A possible small effect on patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias. (emphasis added)

The effect is "possible" and "small", but the important part is that it can't be distinguished from bias. So you have two explanations for the possible and small effect:
A) It really is just bias.
B) Faith and precoceptions can reduce subjectively reported symptoms BUT NOT objectively reported ones.

I find this study revolutionary when contrasted with the standard, widely accepted view on the subject.

If you feel that a passed ABX is a valid way to demonstrating that any particular individual can distinguish a difference between two specific things at any particular time and that caution needs to be exercised when drawing conclusions from a negative result, the concerns raised about the study don't have any bearing.

I agree.

@gnusmas997: We all get the point of the study. You don't have to keep reinforcing it. The problem is that we don't see how it in any way applies to how we do ABX testing or what conclusions we draw from it. Nor are we likely to change our use of the term "placebo" because it can mean something somewhat different in a different application.

I took issue with the way in which the term was used here long ago.  After a few weeks I got over it.

@gnusmas997: We all get the point of the study. You don't have to keep reinforcing it. The problem is that we don't see how it in any way applies to how we do ABX testing or what conclusions we draw from it. Nor are we likely to change our use of the term "placebo" because it can mean something somewhat different in a different application.

pdq,

Would you consider the following as an acceptable definition of placebo effect in audio?

PEA) The thesis that a listener's faith or preconceptions about audio gear or software could cause audible differences that could not be objectively verified.

If so, would you grant that PEA is at least prima facie comparable to B)?

B) Faith and precoceptions can reduce subjectively reported symptoms BUT NOT objectively reported ones.

This B is one of the possible explanations for the medical studies, an explanation that is somewhat implausible.

If the similarity is granted a re-examination of previous results in audio resarch would be justified. As I understod it, the concept placebo effect was introduced in audio precisely on the basis of this parallel with Medicine.

I prefer to use the term expectation bias.  I fear that your desire to equate the two has led you astray from reality.

We actually use the term expectation bias.  I fear that your desire to equate the two has led you astray from reality.

Expectation bias as in, if I expect/hope that gold-plated connectors will sound better then they really will sound better? Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker of english but I can't differentiate that from: if i expect/hope that homeopathy will cure me then I really will be cured.

Expectation, hope, faith, and other mental states are not like the visual cues in the McGurk effect. If homeopathy could really cure its believers there would be nothing wrong with it. If gold-plated connectors really sounded better to audiophiles, there would be nothing wrong with selling them either. What I want is to block the possibility of retreat into subjectivism - "maybe you can't hear, but I can - at least in the comfort of home, if I'm fully relaxed, have adjusted myself to the new equipment, haven't fought with the wife in the last month, etc."

Again, you are confusing what the report says.

I cannot relive a dead person, but I could convince you that he/she is talking to us.  Do you now understand what objective and subjective is?


Addenum related to audio:
With audio, and especifically music, there are two clearly different parts: the sensory capacity to hear sounds, and the psychological effect that the sound provides to the listener.  The expectation bias affects the phychological side.


Addenum to the addenum: (ehem...)
The problem with expectation bias/placebo effect in audio is that it is not constant. Contrary to the McGurk effect, one day you could believe it sounds great, while the next day it would supposedly sound bad, while objectively sounding the same.  As such, not only it doesn't make an objective audible difference, but also the effects are wildly random.

There will never be a silver bullet to refute faith-based claims.  It's baked into the cake.

With audio, and especifically music, there are two clearly different parts: the sensory capacity to hear sounds, and the psychological effect that the sound provides to the listener.  The expectation bias affects the phychological side.

Allow me to tie this in with the McGurk Effect.

When what we hear doesn't go along with what see (i.e.: what we expect to hear), our brain will change what is heard (or our perception of what was processed by the cochlea) so that it agrees with what we expect to hear.

The McGurk Effect is a textbook example of the power (and reality) of expectation bias and the human auditory system.

The McGurk Effect is a textbook example of the power (and reality) of expectation bias and the human auditory system.

As repeatedly claimed, I'm not an expert, but this sounds like a textbook example of behavioral conditioning. A sound becomes associated in the brain with a visual cue. The visual cue is presented and the sound is heard automatically, even if a different sound had actually been played or spoken. If labial movement X is associated with the phoneme for m, then, in some circunstances, I'll hear that phoneme when I see labial movement X.

Contrast that with pure, unaided expectation: if I expect/hope that I'm singing in tune, then I will be hearing myself singing in tune.

If these two can't be dinstinguished then I'm forced to admit that Psychoacoustics is just absolutely beyond me.

The source of expectation bias need not be limited to what is seen, though our sight probably has the strongest power of suggestion.

My guess is that you've never participated in a double-blind test where the difference in test subjects is beyond your ability to discern, but you've been told that others could successfully tell the difference; or worse:  the test subjects were identical but you were told that they were different and how they differed.

Quote

In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients...

So, a placebo is an ineffective form of treatment, but some patients perceive an improvement!      Is that surprising?   

Exactly what we see in audio!  Is that surprising?

I'd say the “modest” part is the surprise.  And that for some diseases/treatments it is miniscule. Under their somewhat narrow definition, that is.

Seems to me that the OP does not understand that when somebody says ".wav sounds better than .flac" in a sighted test, that is potentially a result of biased reporting, just like the publications says happens.

Since "I like that better" is reporting, in the parlance of the report, and without an ability to test veracity of reporting, one can not exclude biased reporting.

So, when a blind test shows no difference, the evidence is clear, it was biased reporting, brought about by something similar to the placebo effect.

If I may call attention to http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/heyser.pptx (http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/heyser.pptx) , slide 14, it is easy to see how visual cues (the same applies to all other cues like taste, touch, smell, proprioception, etc.) can affect what were thought to be auditory cues.

The paper is in agreement with the need for blind testing, and shows the placebo effect to be exactly what audio experts think it is, a bias in reporting subjective results brought on by how the brain works.

There is nothing here that calls into question double-blind tests, and furthermore, this paper makes it even clearer that such tests are absolutely necessary.

Consider, they say that biased reports of wellness happen, but measurements show that there is no change.  That's very similar to the flac/wav controversy, where measurements show no chance, as do DBT's, while reporting from subjects is indeed biased by expectation.

Q.E.D.

and shows the placebo effect to be exactly what audio experts think it is, a bias in reporting subjective results brought on by how the brain works.

A main point of the paper is to distinguish “placebo” (in a more narrow sense) from these other bias effects.

Quote from: Woodinville on 2013-06-12 08:00:39

and shows the placebo effect to be exactly what audio experts think it is, a bias in reporting subjective results brought on by how the brain works.

A main point of the paper is to distinguish “placebo” (in a more narrow sense) from these other bias effects.

Your point?

Woodinville,

John_Siau, greynol, and others helped clarify many points so I’m going to borrow from them in what follows.

Suppose that an audiophile claims that wave sounds better than flac but fails to substantiate this claim after repeated ABX tests, done in varying conditions.

These tests allow us to conclude that there’s no difference between the way wave and flac sounds, but we still need to explain why the audiophile reported a difference.

One possibility is that the audiophile really heard a difference, that is, wave really sounded better because the audiophile wanted it to sound better. If true, this is expectation bias.

Another possibility is that the audiophile didn’t hear any difference but reported hearing it for varied reasons. The why is not really important, but some plausible examples are greed, peer pressure, or politeness. This does not presuppose complete dishonesty – for instance, other, non-aural factors (like elitism) could have ensured that listening to wave was more pleasant than listening to flac. The audiophile might have just misreported the experience – it really felt better, but not because it sounded better.

I thought that the analogy with the medical findings would strengthen the second possibility but everyone else disagrees. I just have a really hard time imagining what it would be like to have my aural experiences subtly manipulated by my hopes and desires. Would I really hear myself singing in tune if I hoped really hard that this was so?

One of the reasons why I think it’s important to clarify which of the two possibilities is true, is that if wave really sounds better to the audiophile because of his expectations, then he is fully justified in using it over flac. In fact, he is fully justified in preaching this usage, in the hopes that other people will also share his expectations and thus hear wave differently from the rest of us.

Coming back to the medical analogy: if faith healing really helped relieve pain in religious persons, doctors would be fully justified in making use of faith healing. But the paper indicates that placebos don’t really cause an improvement in the symptom, just a change in the way patients report their symptoms.

if wave really sounds better to the audiophile because of his expectations, then he is fully justified in using it over flac. In fact, he is fully justified in preaching this usage, in the hopes that other people will also share his expectations and thus hear wave differently from the rest of us.

...and another audiophile may preach compressed lossless over uncompressed PCM.  I don't see how this changes the game any.

I'm sure there are people who consciously know they don't hear the difference who will say they do for whatever reason.  I don't know how many of them will go through the trouble of conducting an ABX test and basing their answers on the toss of a coin instead of on what they hear, however.

What do you make of this very recent post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=101304&view=findpost&p=836937)?

There are others like it.  There are also plenty of people who identify themselves as discerning audiophiles who zealously argue against ABX for various reasons on this forum.  I do not think that they are doing so to fit in, rather they belong in the first category.  Regardless, I hope you no longer hold the idea that the phenomenon we are calling expectation bias does not exist in audio.

As I already intimated, many people operate on faith to the point of irrationality.  There is no logic or reasoning that will change this with people who are closed-minded and willfully ignorant.

...but justified?  I guess one could make the argument that ignorance and the preaching of it are human rights, but in doing so might find yourself crossing the line into defining morality once you begin to weigh the consequences of ignorance and ignorant behavior.

if wave really sounds better to the audiophile because of his expectations, then he is fully justified in using it over flac. In fact, he is fully justified in preaching this usage, in the hopes that other people will also share his expectations and thus hear wave differently from the rest of us.

Personally, I must disagree. If there are any valid candidates for valid measures of morality that could elevate it above pure subjectivism, truth has to be at or near the top of the list. Surely, as a scientifically/objectively based community, we can all apportion some degree of plausibility to that. Saying people can believe whatever they want is one thing: thinking it’s good for them to be able to coax others into others believing the same unverifiable claims and the untruths that generally underlie them is another. But I’m by no means a philosopher, as is probably evident, so I’ll stop here. :|

Quote from: Porcus on 2013-06-12 11:29:14

Quote from: Woodinville on 2013-06-12 08:00:39

and shows the placebo effect to be exactly what audio experts think it is, a bias in reporting subjective results brought on by how the brain works.

A main point of the paper is to distinguish “placebo” (in a more narrow sense) from these other bias effects.

Your point?

Precisely what I wrote. I obviously read the article way different than you claimed to.

I thought that the analogy with the medical findings would strengthen the second possibility but everyone else disagrees. I just have a really hard time imagining what it would be like to have my aural experiences subtly manipulated by my hopes and desires. Would I really hear myself singing in tune if I hoped really hard that this was so?

Your argument from incredulity is not convincing.  Yes, we assume the listener is sincere in his/her claim that A sounded better than B.  SO WHAT? 

If I may quote from JJ's powerpoint, because he states the modern understanding of the psychology of audio so succinctly:

First, what you like to listen to is PREFERENCE, not “accuracy”. You listen to what you prefer to hear, not what is measurably more accurate, unless of course, you prefer a good measurement.  Preference is inviolate!
Preference can amount from many, many things, in many, many ways.

And,  regarding those many many things:

No, you can’t ignore them.
It’s not delusion, hallucination, or stupidity, it’s how your brain works.
If it’s not a DBT, you have no idea what you were responding to, beyond “something.”

If you aren't acknowledging all that, then your 'justification' for trying to convince others that A sounds better than B, is simply unwarranted faith in the perfection of your senses.

There are also plenty of people who identify themselves as discerning audiophiles who zealously argue against ABX for various reasons on this forum.

Are there? Well, they've come to they right place... There are many places on the net where they'll be quite well received, so why bother?

Saying people can believe whatever they want is one thing: thinking it’s good for them to be able to coax others into others believing the same unverifiable claims and the untruths that generally underlie them is another.

And there you have the modus operandi of most religious people.  Let me tell you, that behavior in audiophiles does not surprise me in the least. Quite faithful folks...

In all seriousness, ABX testing was quite a mind-opener for me when I first tried it a couple of years ago. I would have never encoded mp3 below constant or average 192kbps, as I was quite certain it sounded awful below that. So imagine my surprise when I found I couldn't discern V6 LAME-encoded songs I knew quite well... A massive re-encoding session was to take place. 

So, I would say the community here is quite right in thinking the effect of placebo in audio does matter. The reasons for that are already explained throughout this topic, just wanted to give my two cents.

I hope you no longer hold the idea that the phenomenon we are calling expectation bias does not exist in audio.

My SOP is to defer to the expertise of any community that pays allegiance to rationality and objective evidence. If I don't understand something, I presume that the problem lies with me. But in all honesty I still don't understand how expectation bias in audio would work. As you hinted earlier, I've never experienced this kind of illusion myself. Actually, the only time I heard a difference between audio gear that measurably should sound identical involved a problem with volume matching. After proper matching I could no longer detect any difference.

My greatest difficulty is on why expectation bias differs from other auditory illusions like the Shepard tone or the McGurk effect. These are real illusions, that remain after blind testing, even though they might not affect everyone equally. But in expectation bias it's not that a specific group of people (children, those who suffered specific brain injuries, the left-handed, etc) has greater propensity to experience the illusion. It's that each and every listener might be hearing something different, and they're the only ones who can tell.

As I already intimated, many people operate on faith to the point of irrationality.  There is no logic or reasoning that will change this with people who are closed-minded and willfully ignorant.

I think you are right. But still, many audiophiles are otherwise reasonable persons. They don't believe in conspiracy theories, secret UFO invasions or the more wacky elements of some religions. And yet they fail to see that some audio myths are equally ridiculous.

If you aren't acknowledging all that, then your 'justification' for trying to convince others that A sounds better than B, is simply unwarranted faith in the perfection of your senses.

I'm not sure I follow. This difference between preference and unwarranted faith seems to me more a matter of attitude than anything else. If I say that I have a personal preference for golden cables I'm embracing a live-and-let-live mentality, accepting that others might have different preferences. Whereas if I say that you can't hear the differences provided by golden cables because I've got golden ears and you haven't, then I'm being arrogant. But in both cases it seems that I'm claiming the same thing, namely, that I can hear something especial that you cannot.

My SOP is to defer to the expertise of any community that pays allegiance to rationality and objective evidence. If I don't understand something, I presume that the problem lies with me. But in all honesty I still don't understand how expectation bias in audio would work. As you hinted earlier, I've never experienced this kind of illusion myself. Actually, the only time I heard a difference between audio gear that measurably should sound identical involved a problem with volume matching. After proper matching I could no longer detect any difference.

I'd be willing to be you have experienced expectation bias in audio at some point in your life.  You surely haven't tested every instance where you thought something sounded different/better, have you? 

If you are going to defer to expertise, perhaps now is the time:  psychoacoustics researchers *always* use blind protocols when they are studying perception of audio difference/preference.   

And btw, expectation bias is not the *only* kind of bias that confounds the accuracy of audio perception.

Quote from: krabapple link=msg=0 date=

If you aren't acknowledging all that, then your 'justification' for trying to convince others that A sounds better than B, is simply unwarranted faith in the perfection of your senses.

I'm not sure I follow. This difference between preference and unwarranted faith seems to me more a matter of attitude than anything else. If I say that I have a personal preference for golden cables I'm embracing a live-and-let-live mentality, accepting that others might have different preferences. Whereas if I say that you can't hear the differences provided by golden cables because I've got golden ears and you haven't, then I'm being arrogant. But in both cases it seems that I'm claiming the same thing, namely, that I can hear something especial that you cannot.

The part you keep missing is that your preference is not necessarily due to sound...even if you believe it is only due to the sound.

Well. Expectation bias also hasn't a clear-cut universal definition, has it? E.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias) points the finger at the researcher. I guess what is commonly referred to as expectation bias in this forum, is this effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect)

This is a forum for scientific discussion, so one shouldn't discard a discussion of the taxonomy of biases, but one should also beware that if those terms are not necessarily the same as used in everyday life, then the inferences and interpretations of the studies should be adjusted accordingly. Just because a study doesn't find any “placebo”, it doesn't mean it isn't there – it could very well be a proven (significantly nonzero) bias, but not sure to be within that particular definition of “placebo”. In this case, the definition requires not only that patients report the sham medicine to work because they think it does, but because sham medicine actually did improve compared to a baseline of, say, no treatment.

How to translate that latter effect to audio quality (as opposed to the effect of pleasure from music, where it should be obvious to think of an exampe)? It would be something like an artifact training scheme that where the bias from the expensive price tag on the equipment actually has the effect of improving your learning. Not that you start reporting differences that aren't, but you become truly better at discovering true differences. Well. If nobody can find that effect to be significant, it still doesn't mean that those sighted reports of .wav superior to .flac are unbiased, does it?

I'd be willing to be you have experienced expectation bias in audio at some point in your life.  You surely haven't tested every instance where you thought something sounded different/better, have you?

As children most of us learn that imagining what it would be like to get a gift can be more enjoyable than actulally getting it. As adults we sometime reliaze that reliving the past makes things seem better than they really were. That's one of the ways human beings deal with the past and present, but their actual experiences of the events remains untouched. If I thought that I heard a difference that I later failed to substantiate in a test, I'd rather presume that my memory is unreliable, instead of my hearing. This is not so for the McGurk effect and other illusions - there you can be certain, after blind testing, that you really heard what you thought you heard.

The part you keep missing is that your preference is not necessarily due to sound...even if you believe it is only due to the sound.

But I'd be perfectly fine with that! If the difference is not due to sound, then the analogy with the medical findings would follow perfectly. Did you read that part of the paper in which they raise the possibility that the kind of service-with-a-smile health care could benefit patients, not because of any direct effect but rather because it could motivate patients to take their medication regularly, follow other medical instructions and change to a more health conscious lifestyle?

These indirect benefits would be like listening to music in a leather sofa instead of wooden chair - it wouldn't significantly alter the way the music sounded, but it would improve the experience. If the listener later reported that leather sittings make music sound better that would just be a misreport.

If I thought that I heard a difference that I later failed to substantiate in a test, I'd rather presume that my memory is unreliable, instead of my hearing.

If there was evidence that your hearing was unreliable, would you still rather presume this?

If there was evidence that your hearing was unreliable, would you still rather presume this?

No. But the question was related to my personal experience.

Here's a discussion related to "auditory memory" (or whatever you would like to call it, I don't care; check your nitpicking at the door), in it you can find links to other similar discussions:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=71595 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71595)

There are many many discussions about this type of thing that are tangential to this topic.  If you haven't searched the forum and read through a few heated debates you're missing out on a lot.

These indirect benefits would be like listening to music in a leather sofa instead of wooden chair - it wouldn't significantly alter the way the music sounded, but it would improve the experience. If the listener later reported that leather sittings make music sound better that would just be a misreport.

 

Try telling an audiophile that his claims about the *sound* of his new cable/power conditioner/DAC sound are probably just *misreports*, and see what happens.

Quote from: krabapple on 2013-06-13 04:34:26

I'd be willing to be you have experienced expectation bias in audio at some point in your life.  You surely haven't tested every instance where you thought something sounded different/better, have you?

As children most of us learn that imagining what it would be like to get a gift can be more enjoyable than actulally getting it. As adults we sometime reliaze that reliving the past makes things seem better than they really were. That's one of the ways human beings deal with the past and present, but their actual experiences of the events remains untouched. If I thought that I heard a difference that I later failed to substantiate in a test, I'd rather presume that my memory is unreliable, instead of my hearing. This is not so for the McGurk effect and other illusions - there you can be certain, after blind testing, that you really heard what you thought you heard.

Both hearing and memory are far from perfectly reliable.  Yours included.  This is why no *experts* (and I seem to *remember* you saying you defer to experts on things) on hearing or memory would rely on your report on its own.

It need not be a distant memory.  Even as you are taking an ABX text, it is quite possible you will report 'hearing' differences that aren't real.  The memory lag there can be  fractions of a second.

Well. Expectation bias also hasn't a clear-cut universal definition, has it? E.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias) points the finger at the researcher. I guess what is commonly referred to as expectation bias in this forum, is this effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect)

When a listener on his own is comparing things, *he* is the 'researcher' or 'observer'.


And expectation is just one bias. Take your pick of these others:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

or check out the list in the TOC for Chapter 4 of this textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=XX9xwk9G0EUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Morten+C.+Meilgaard%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7mW6Uau2JYLR0wGchoGICw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)  (google lets you do it)

This is why no *experts* (and I seem to *remember* you saying you defer to experts on things) on hearing or memory would rely on your report on its own.

Deferring to the expertise of a community is not the same thing as deferring to an expert. Come to think of it, I'd be far more comfortable if a few links to academic articles providing evidence for the phenomenon under discussion had been dropped earlier in the thread. Or at least some easy to find bibliographical references.

These tests allow us to conclude that there’s no difference between the way wave and flac sounds, but we still need to explain why the audiophile reported a difference.

No, we don't need to explain this, unless we want to examine why the audiophile determines his or her PREFERENCE.

Preference is inviolate.  There is no arguing preference, and one can use what one PREFERS to use to establish PREFERENCE.

Yes, it is possible to examine why preference exists in some cases, via complex research.

But, if an individual prefers how hir stereo sounds while using red speaker wire, so be it.

The problem comes about when s/he argues that hir preference is MORE than preference.

Quote from: gnusmas997 on 2013-06-12 15:03:38

if wave really sounds better to the audiophile because of his expectations, then he is fully justified in using it over flac. In fact, he is fully justified in preaching this usage, in the hopes that other people will also share his expectations and thus hear wave differently from the rest of us.

Personally, I must disagree. If there are any valid candidates for valid measures of morality that could elevate it above pure subjectivism, truth has to be at or near the top of the list. Surely, as a scientifically/objectively based community, we can all apportion some degree of plausibility to that. Saying people can believe whatever they want is one thing: thinking it’s good for them to be able to coax others into others believing the same unverifiable claims and the untruths that generally underlie them is another. But I’m by no means a philosopher, as is probably evident, so I’ll stop here. :|

One is free to use one's preference, but I would submit that it is unethical to try to perpetuate a preference that is not solidly based on some kind of evidence.

I totally agree. By the same token, if you hadn’t posted that second post, I’d have posted this after your first post.

The problem comes about when s/he argues that hir preference is MORE than preference.

I would separate subjective preferences (favourite band, colour, and so on) from the assertion of differences that are contrary to all rational expectations. The former are inherently untestable. The latter are eminently subject to testability. Where I, and I think most people here, have a problem is where people refuse to prove the things they claim so emphatically.

Alternatively stated, people can have preferences, and whether subjective preferences can ever be evaluated is a topic for another kind of philosophy, but if those preferences are testable and seem specifically orthogonal to reality (as opposed to purely aesthetic, etc.), no one is under any obligation to respect them until evidence is provided.

By the same logic, and going back to the post by gnusmas997 quoted by Woodinville two posts up, I personally don’t care why people report imaginary phenomena. Maybe others are enjoying this round of semantics and nit-picking, and it’s perfectly possible that I’m just lacking in the relevant philosophical skills needed to appreciate it fully…but I would say that an unverifiable claim is an unverifiable claim. Does the person really hear the difference? Try to convince them to test it properly, but good luck separating some of them from their sentimental need to feel special. Are they lying for cynical reasons? Welcome to the world.

Alternatively stated, people can have preferences, and whether subjective preferences can ever be evaluated is a topic for another kind of philosophy, but if those preferences are testable and seem specifically orthogonal to reality (as opposed to purely aesthetic, etc.), no one is under any obligation to respect them until evidence is provided.

All the more, most of the times in audiophile field the path to create a belief starts, dangerously I'd say, from a pseudo-scientific statement and leads to an intuitive, even if wrong, application to sound quality. So that it's not a real preference, which could be perfectly legitimate at a subjective level if formed AFTER a sensorial experience, but a sort of aprioristic knowledge which prevents the listener to form a preference, because he already know "rationally" what to like and what not to!

If you state that analog is better than digital because "the world doesn't go step by step but in a temporal continuum", if you state that 24 bits are better than 16 and show a stairstepped curve side by side to a smoother one, you create an apparent but intuitive rational expectation: any surprise if nine people out of ten, when they know what they're listening, will find better the one that their brains already know it is better?

All this has nothing to do with freedom of choice, which is the base of preference.

Proof is that the vast majority of people who hasn't been instructed before, as to say not audiophilities-aware listeners, and has had the freedom of choice, has chosen CD upon LP over the years and then lossy upon lossless for mass distribution (both legal and illegal ).

That’s a very good way of describing it. I couldn’t find a way to translate what I was thinking into words very well, so you’ve helped to clarify that bit of it.

But, if an individual prefers how hir stereo sounds while using red speaker wire, so be it.

This leads us back to the starting point of this thread: can wire color make stereos sound differently for specific individuals? If yes, on what evidence is that based?

Medical analogy: can pill color improve subjectively reported symptoms? Based on recent findings the answer is: logically we can't conclude that pill color has no effect. What we can say is that, if it exists, the effect is going to be small and that there's, presently, no evidence supporting its existence (=it is indistinguishable from bias).

Please excuse me if you’ve already tried to explain this umpteen times, but if so, tell me again. How is the placebo effect any different from expectation bias in the scenario you posit? The patient is given a pill made of sugar and water; the patient expects it to be real and to have an effect, so through the mysterious magic of the placebo effect, they start to feel better.

The paper you brought instead suggests that reports about placebos can be biased. This, to me, is a valid concern, but seems to be separate from whether perception was genuinely affected. Untangling the two might well be difficult, hence conclusions such as those of the paper. I defer to others to authoritatively comment on the paper in context, but I personally don’t see how reporting bias does much to suggest that placebo doesn’t actually occur, although it’s obviously a confounding factor in need of attention. Expecting an inherently subjective being to provide reports completely free of subjectivity seems futile, so things like this will always complicate matters, but in general, we still need to pay attention to reports about perception. And anyway, if we just require objective testing, all these complications seem to magically vanish!

And lest we forget:

Despite low effects in general and the risk of bias, the authors acknowledged that large effects of placebo interventions may occur in certain situations.

Please excuse me if you’ve already tried to explain this umpteen times, but if so, tell me again. How is the placebo effect any different from expectation bias in the scenario you posit? The patient is given a pill made of sugar and water; the patient expects it to be real and to have an effect, so through the mysterious magic of the placebo effect, they start to feel better.

This used to be the standard view on the subject, and many researchers ended their papers on placebo with suggestions about how doctors could apply this mysterious magic in their practices, so as to help patients improve at less risk and no extra expense.

The three papers I mentioned in my first post reviewed much of the evidence for this mysterious magic and arrived at a series of conclusions:
a)it doesn't affect binary outcomes (cured/not cured).
b)it doesn't affect symptoms and conditions that can be objectively measured (like blood pressure)
c)there is no evidence that it affects subjectively reported symptoms (like pain and nausea).

On the third conclusion, they say that a small effect could be found (it varies widely among symptoms, methodology used and kinds of patients). But this small effect can't be distinguished from bias. 

If you don't want to read any of three papers, here's a popular article, by one of the co-authors, in which he summarizes their findings:
The Placebo Myth (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-placebo-myth)

When clinical outcomes of placebos were measured on a binary scale, such as improved/not improved, we could not detect any placebo effects. Nor did we find any effect on objective outcomes measured on a continuous scale, such as blood pressure or weight loss. We did find an apparent effect on subjective continuous outcomes such as pain, but these results were weak and unreliable. We noticed, for example that the larger the study, the smaller the effect – and small studies are statistically less reliable than bigger ones, and often exaggerate the effect. The weak effect of placebos on subjective outcomes, such as pain, may also be spurious for another reason. In almost all relevant studies, the patients were randomly divided into three groups: those receiving a medically active treatment, those receiving a placebo treatment, and those receiving no treatment. But it is a well-known phenomenon in health care research that it is impossible in these kinds of studies to prevent a bias in the way patients report their subjective states.

I think the author speaks very clearly. He does come short of saying placebo effect doesn't exist. He calls it "a myth", "spurious", "rather weak even if real", and so on.

But at this point I'm using these medical analogies just to clarify what I'm getting at. Earlier in the thread it was suggested to me that the phenomenon is widely documented in audio and backed up by rigorous evidence. I'm basically just waiting for the references.

Well, I wish you luck with that (not sarcastically ).

To be fair, it should be noted that you keep referring to a single author/pair, and there seems to have been some controversy about the conclusions. I’m not claiming to have an understanding of all the discussion around this, so I leave it to others to make pronouncements, but we should try to retain a sense of balance by not relying on single authors/groups, ater all.

The forum is chalk-full of claims that one thing sounds better than another where both things are equal without any effort to demonstrate how in an objective way. Many of them will be found in the recycle bin.  There are also claims (or suggestions) of audible differences which include failed ABX tests (p >> 5%) as "evidence".

It is expected that it be proven that there isn't some grand conspiracy that all of those people are being dishonest for reasons x, y and z?

It doesn't work that way; and personally, I don't care if the horse won't drink.

Even though I'm a layman, if someone were to ask me for proof of the McGurk effect's existence I'd be able to provide links to some half a dozen papers available online.

Many posters have claimed that the phenomenon we are discussing is supported by evidence. I don't think it's odd to ask them to be kind of enough to either present an instance of such evidence or tell us where to find it.

On the other hand, if they will withdraw their claim that this is a well documented phenomenon and just say that they know it exists from their personal experience and anedoctal report, the whole discussion will have to be reframed. I hope it's clear by now that I'm very skeptical about personal experience. I wouldn't trust my own shadow if it didn't provide me with a DBT.

How is the placebo effect any different from expectation bias in the scenario you posit? The patient is given a pill made of sugar and water; the patient expects it to be real and to have an effect, so through the mysterious magic of the placebo effect, they start to feel better.

In their definitions, as far as I read it: Placebo would be if the sugar pill treatment actually cures (at least to some extent). Not only does the patient feel better, or report to feel better, but - through this perception or otherwise - the sugar pill treatment helps rid the disease.

@OP: The forum has a search function.  You are free to use it.  I was polite in asking you to conduct your own research. At this time I will simply tell you that I'm not going to do it for you.

The forum has a search function.

It was used before I started the thread. With the exception of a result from 2003, I found nothing relevant. Maybe my search was flawed, as I was not well acquainted with the forum's terminology.

But just to be clear, I'm not questioning that individuals come here and report all the time that they can hear differences that they later fail to hear in a DBT (or, at least, they fail to prove that they can hear the differences). I know this and it's very annoying. I'm not saying that they're lying either - although I have my doubts about the integrity of some journalists. What I'm saying is that when they say that they've heard a difference they're just as wrong as the patient who claims that his pain was diminshed after eating a sugar pill.

They didn't hear any difference because there isn't any. The patients didn't feel any improvement because there wasn't any.

All that's required to establish the falsehood of the first sentence is a proper experiment. For instance: subjects consistently rated the item labelled wave more highly than the one labelled flac, even though the wave condition actually led to playing of 96kbps mp3...

In their definitions, as far as I read it: Placebo would be if the sugar pill treatment actually cures (at least to some extent). Not only does the patient feel better, or report to feel better, but - through this perception or otherwise - the sugar pill treatment helps rid the disease.

If that's the case, translating the definition (as it is) to audio would not be possible, as it would mean asserting that placebo (or expectation bias) in the subject doing the test is actually changing whatever he's listening to. And that cannot happen AFAIK.

I can tell you first-hand that you can hear things through the power of suggestion that don't actually exist. When told that they do exist prior to taking a double-blind test when they don't actually exist you can hear them anyway to the point that you think you hear it in X but not in Y.

Woodinville has referred to the phenomena as steering.

Seeing that we're still nitpicking terms, the person taking a test is called the testee. The items being auditioned for testing are what are called the subjects.

I can tell you first-hand that you can hear things through the power of suggestion that don't actually exist. When told that they do exist prior to taking a double-blind test when they don't actually exist you can hear them anyway to the point that you think you hear it in X but not in Y.

Woodinville has referred to the phenomena as steering.

I'm aware that can happen, but just because you are hearing things it doesn't necessarily mean those things are actually coming out of the speakers/headphones. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Seeing that we're still nitpicking terms, the person taking a test is called the testee. The items being auditioned for testing are what are called the subjects.

Got it, thanks for clarifying

I can tell you first-hand that you can hear things through the power of suggestion that don't actually exist. When told that they do exist prior to taking a double-blind test when they don't actually exist you can hear them anyway to the point that you think you hear it in X but not in Y.

You were not the only poster who claimed to have evidence of this power of suggestion. When I read those claims I was naturally expecting references to some peer-reviewed papers. The second best thing would be detailed instructions on how to produce these effects - if it comes to it I might even set up an informal experiment among my friends.

You were not the only poster who claimed to have evidence of this power of suggestion. When I read those claims I was naturally expecting references to some peer-reviewed papers. The second best thing would be detailed instructions on how to produce these effects - if it comes to it I might even set up an informal experiment among my friends.

The Mcgurk effect; maybe this was mentioned earlier.

short clip worth watching if you haven't.  Your brain is fooled even when you know what is happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0)

link to some articles:
http://tinyurl.com/mtbuglv (http://tinyurl.com/mtbuglv)

The McGurk effect is the real deal and very robust. So are other auditory illusions. I've been unable to locate any evidence for "placebo effect in audio",  "expectation bias in audio", "subject-expctation bias in audio" and similar terms.

The McGurk effect is the real deal and very robust. So are other auditory illusions. I've been unable to locate any evidence for "placebo effect in audio",  "expectation bias in audio", "subject-expctation bias in audio" and similar terms.

I'm certainly no expert on the McGurk effect, but it seems to work in some sort of "expectation bias in audio" framework (we hear what we expect to hear). Yes, a bit of oversimplification, but ....

Quote from: gnusmas997 on 2013-06-15 22:26:58

The McGurk effect is the real deal and very robust. So are other auditory illusions. I've been unable to locate any evidence for "placebo effect in audio",  "expectation bias in audio", "subject-expctation bias in audio" and similar terms.

I'm certainly no expert on the McGurk effect, but it seems to work in some sort of "expectation bias in audio" framework (we hear what we expect to hear). Yes, a bit of oversimplification, but ....

In the McGurk you can make sure that you really heard what you thought heard by participating in a DBT.  The same thing is true for the Glissando illusion, the Shepart tone, etc. In these you really heard what you thought you heard.

The phenomenon we're discussing is different because it disappears after all DBTs. Well, we're still waiting on the "all". The point is that you didn't really hear anything different unless you can prove that you did in a DBT. Just saying that you really heard it is not enough.

As was explained earlier (at least a couple of times now?), what is heard has to do with processing what is received from the outer ear by the inner ear and the lastly by the brain.  The McGurk effect demonstrates the effect the brain can have over what we hear.

Yes, I said it, what we hear.  Take the visual away and you will hear something different (assuming it affected you in the first place).  Bring the visual back and those affected will hear the wrong thing once again.

The sense of hearing involves more than the actual stimulus to the outer ears.

I don't doubt for a moment that true believers in audio-woo may actually hear something different as a result of it.

The point of requiring DBT is to remove the other influences that affect what we hear.  This is a different thing than saying it proves something isn't heard.  Hopefully a humbling ABX experience might lift the veil, forcing a paradigm shift in the true believers, causing them to re-evaluate their position and become more critical of what they hear; to make them better, more aware listeners.  Sometimes this doesn't work, leading to comments like ABX must be flawed because I can definitely hear a difference when I'm not testing.  It must be because of fatigue or it doesn't put me in the right frame of reference.  You name it, I've heard plenty of pitiful excuses.

I don't doubt for a moment that true believers in audio-woo may actually hear something different as a result of it.

But here's my problem: that's a subjective belief of yours based on your personal experience. I share neither your belief nor your experience. By contrast, I can prove to anyone who accepts statistics that the McGurk effect exists. That's through objective, rational, proof.

i accept the validity of statistics. Can anybody prove to me that the phenomenon under discussion exists?

For the last time: I don't accept anecdotes and subjective experiences by themselves as evidence. If that's all that supports the phenomenon's existence, belief in it is irrational.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

1) Of course it isn't all that exists.

2) I don't care if you don't believe me.

3) Exactly how do you plan on using statistics to prove that the McGurk Effect is real?

1) Of course it isn't all that exists.

I don't understand this.

2) I don't care if you don't believe me.

If you want to start with puerility, so be it: I don't give a damn if you care about anything

3) Exactly how do you plan on using statistics to prove that the McGurk Effect is real?

By referencing muliple studies that establish, through statistical methods, the effect's existence and generalize the findings to rest of the human population.

But at this point I pretty much give up. If I had suspected that what passed for evidence around here were sentences that start like "I saw it myself..." or "Somebody claimed in that other thread that..." I could have been spared quite a few hours of my life. I feel like someone who signed up for a geographical convention and ended up at the annual meeting of Flat Earth Society.

When patients report that their pain has diminished after eating a sugar pill they're just trying to please their doctors, or perhaps they're too polite to say that the treatment was completely ineffective, and prefer to say that there was a little improvement.

Considering your opening evaluation is STILL unsubstantiated, why should greynol (or anybody) else feed you more papers that you'll draw unsupported conclusions from?

As I said originally, that is not what the paper you cited says.

By referencing muliple studies that establish, through statistical methods, the effect's existence and generalize the findings to rest of the human population.

I imagine you'll want me to dig this up for you as well. 

Quote from: Porcus on 2013-06-15 17:46:35

In their definitions, as far as I read it: Placebo would be if the sugar pill treatment actually cures (at least to some extent). Not only does the patient feel better, or report to feel better, but - through this perception or otherwise - the sugar pill treatment helps rid the disease.

If that's the case, translating the definition (as it is) to audio would not be possible

It could be possible yes, for example if and when the effect of the placebo is the help from the power of the mind. I tried to construct one case in posting #51. What  if I am marketing 'revealing' loudspeakers, claiming that listeners actually pick up more artifacts with these compared to speakers at half the price? Put them to the test with, say, lossless vs near-transparent mp3s? Make three groups of listeners (large enough, blah blah blah): Group #1 listens through the expensive speakers. Group #2 listens through the cheap ones. If group #1 detect more artifacts - they really do, they score better at ABXing - does that mean that the speakers are more revealing?
Not necessary: Group #3 listens through the cheap ones, having been told they are the expensive revealing ones. What if group #3 scores better at ABXing than group #2? Explanation? What if the following did really happen: what if the information - whether true or false - that you are listening through revealing equipment, actually changes your performance? It is not farfetched - in many situations, performance is affected by the belief that you can perform better.

Maybe I haven't read well enough in this thread but I didn't catch anyone bringing up some things that seem to me to be rather directly relevant to the question. Maybe these things have failed to be repeatable and I, not being much of a follower of the subject, have missed the refuting publications?

Surely anyone interested in the subject knows that many experiments have been published where subjects could quite reliability differentiate between signals in training trials but reported stimuli incorrectly after being deliberately mislead by the experimenters on what to expect (i.e. subjects reported in accordance with expectations rather than reality) I don't have references but I remember examples being given a great many years ago in my classes on experimental design and related psychology topics. Subjects' reports were often clear and decisive -- and just plain wrong --  when the only determining factor seem to be expectation and social influences effecting belief.

Much more recently I've read a number of popular press articles about experiments at events such as wine tasting events where "experts", and the general public alike, have been let to wax eloquently about inexpensive wines and denigrate expensive wines after the wines were secretly switched. The only article I remember off hand isn't so elaborate, but the principal seems the same
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13072745 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13072745)
People though they were getting the "good" stuff so they reported experiencing the good stuff. I suppose it could be argued that the reports were only going along with social pressure or were made because of not wishing to embarrassed the hosts, or some such motive, although the consistency in results from such experiments leads me to feel that such an interpretation is stretching things a bit. another article I remember from somewhere dealt with wines being put into different bottles, so that expensive wines could be visually presented as cheap wines and cheap wines as expensive.

Then there is this report, where "brain scan"  measurements were consistent with subject responses. Of course, one could suggest that the measurements were not interpreted correctly but is there evidence from somewhere else that suggest that is really the case?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22614130/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22614130/)

More directly relevant was a report I wish I could find again. I believe I read it online but I don't collect most such things and have been unable to locate it again. Surely I was not the only one to see it. In this article a supposedly new technological development was reported which allows researchers to measure the response of individual neurons in the auditory cortex.

Subjects were given training trails on a selection of signals in a typical hearing test via headphones setup. These signals differences must have been near threshold (one would think) but were enough above that the subjects could reliably discriminate between them after the training. On finding was that each different signal activated a different neuron. The researches were able to definitively correlate particular brain responses with the particular inputs.

Then, in the testing part of the experiment, the subjects were sometimes led to expect one sound but actually given another. Also, some trails set up a particular expectation and no signal was provided. Subject reports were consistent with expectations, not with actual signals.
More interestingly, neuron firing in the auditory cortex was consistent with expectation, not with actual input to the ears. This seems to suggest that expectation does indeed alter the experience of reality. Obviously it is something that could stand more experimentation.

Unlike medical experiments, the researchers here were not looking for long term changes, only the immediate experience, but these results seems to suggest that patient reports of reduced pain or other improvements might indeed be more than lies or being too polite, or intimidated,  to disagree. The placebo might not effect the cancer in the gall bladder but maybe the belief in the placebo 1does effect the personal experience of the condition. What happens in the brain is not what is happening in the finger, it is a processing of some information about what is happening in the finger. People make mistakes in interpretations or conclusions all the time.

Dreams are familiar to almost everyone. People experience things in dreams that seem real while they are occurring. Sometimes dreams incorporate real world stimuli interpreted as something very different than what they really are. Hypnosis can be used to induce very real seeming experiences, involving any or all of the senses, without any tie to surrounding physical reality.

greynol: Last night I was abducted by aliens.

gnusmas997: You're out of your mind.

greynol: Surely you don't expect me to do your research for you and actually provide proofs that substantiate my INSANE claims! Noob, LOL!

I'm starting to think that my earliar comparison was an insult to the Flat Earth Society.

http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/w...ear-part-1.html (http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-we-hear-what-we-hear-part-1.html)

Again, I don't care whether you believe me or not.  I'm not the one on a mission here.

Further posts like this last one of yours will be binned per TOS #2 (trolling).  This is not open for debate and will be your only warning.

http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/w...ear-part-1.html (http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-we-hear-what-we-hear-part-1.html)

Interesting link, but unfortunately it doesn't meet the standards of evidence to which I'm used

Further posts like this last one of yours will be binned per TOS #2 (trolling).  This is not open for debate and will be your only warning.

It was not meant as trolling but as an accurate parody of a line of argumentation that was consitently used throughout the thread. Did you really miss the parallel? If supporters of an undocumented aural illusion can transfer the burden of proof to the skeptic, so can believers in alien abductions.

If anyone wants to know what a proper (though not ideal) study of an aural illusion looks like, here's a link on the McGurk effect:

http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/ar...01/av01_138.pdf (http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/archive_papers/avsp01/av01_138.pdf)

The researchers first set up an experiment, obtain statistically valid results and only then do they offer an explanation for these results. Even if you don't agree with their explanation, the results are still there - the McGurk effect in this specific context was more confirmed after they finished their experiment then it already was before.

Here's the abstract:

Why does audio give more [d] percepts with
visual [g] than with visual [d], as in the present
classical McGurk experiment ? An explanation
given for this asymmetry could be a language bias
towards [d]. As concerns the visual information, and
contrary to what is sometimes taken as granted in
part of the lipreading literature, visual [g] does not
give more [d] than [g] responses. In fact [d] and [g]
are neither visemically, nor auditorily equivalent.
They are fully distinguishable in audio as well as in
vision, where 80% correct identifications are current
in laboratory condition, as in the present experiment.
We show here that in spite of these highly
differenciating scores, FLMP modelling can quite
surprisingly account for such an asymmetry by
tuning very small remaining values; which is highly
unsatisfactory. We suggest another explanation for
this asymmetry which could be grounded on brain
mechanisms dedicated to the computation of
auditory and visual mouth opening movements, i.e.
audio movement and visual velocity detectors and
integrators, dedicated to the bimodal integration of
place targets in speech.

Your aliens analogy was a straw-man argument.

Anyhow, you can be as skeptical as you wish.  It doesn't affect what I have read and heard from experts on the subject which is in harmony with my personal experience.  Also, let's not forget all the other points I've made on the matter which you dodged, waved away or simply flew over your head.  Anyway, if it isn't good enough for you then so be it.

I'll simply refer you to all the previous replies you received at this time.

Anyhow, you can be as skeptical as you wish.  It doesn't affect what I have read and heard from experts on the subject which is in harmony with my personal experience.

To convince me all that would be required is experimental proof. It was hinted and sometimes stated explicitly (not necessarily by you, greynol) that such proofs were available. Look for instance at post #53, by drewfx. I've been unable to locate these proofs - is it really so insulting to ask for them?

Some of the arguments to which I haven't responded were based on general interpreations about the way the human faculty of hearing works. I don't think that this would be a productive way of settiling the problem. For starters, less is known about the hearing faculty then about illusions, and I hope we can all agree that attaining such a broad understanding of human hearing is much more difficult and time-demanding than doing a simple experiment (a la McGurk effect) to establish the existence of an illusion.

Enjoy your continued quest for evidence.

Just don't assume there isn't any simply because you either haven't found it or have managed to twist yourself into a pretzel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) in order to discount or re-interpret what you have seen so far.

Quote from: greynol on 2013-06-19 00:46:09

http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/w...ear-part-1.html (http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-we-hear-what-we-hear-part-1.html)

Interesting link, but unfortunately it doesn't meet the standards of evidence to which I'm used

Really, now, why is that?

I happen to know for sure that that blog is supported by about 100 years of psychoacoustic research.

And if you wish to discuss it further with the author, well, here I am, so what's your objection?

Be specific.  I have 100+ years of research on my side.

Yours?

The McGurk effect is the real deal and very robust. So are other auditory illusions. I've been unable to locate any evidence for "placebo effect in audio",  "expectation bias in audio", "subject-expctation bias in audio" and similar terms.

Good lord, man, I gave you a link to a *textbook* that has a whole section on biases affecting sensory perception.  Do you think the authors included it purely as an act of imagination? 

Really, now, why is that?

I happen to know for sure that that blog is supported by about 100 years of psychoacoustic research.

And if you wish to discuss it further with the author, well, here I am, so what's your objection?

Be specific.  I have 100+ years of research on my side.

Yours?

First let me make it clear that I only read the four part piece on Why We Hear What We Hear. My problem is that doesn't actually present the research but just states the conclusions. Here's an example, from part 4:

[The plasticity of forming auditory features and auditory objects] has a particularly important implication for audio enthusiasts, which is expectation will always cause you to hear things differently

What I'd like to see is a few studies that show you that the expectations will really cause to hear things differently. Not just cause you to report things differently, like in Medicine, but to actually hear them differently. For the McGurk effect this kind of evidence is widely available.

I thought I had made this clear earlier, but since it's a lengthy thread, I understand that no everyone might have read everything. So I'll try it again, now with an optical example.

Suppose that there are two observers of a series of moving shapes and colors in the night sky. One is an astronomer, the other an UFO enthusiast. The two see exactly the same moving shapes and colors, from more or less the same angle. The next day the astronomer reports, say, that he casually observed the movement of a comet. The UFO enthusiast, on the other hand, reports that he saw an UFO patrolling the Earth.

The perception in this case was unaltered by their expectations. The only difference was in the individual interpretations of their perceptions.

This analogy, like the medical one, is used for purposes of clarifcation only. I do not presume that hearing works like vision.

Some of the  audioskeptic's more serious papers:

Bibliography

    Fejzo, Z., Hastings, S., Johnston, J. D., and Jot, J., “Beyond Coding: Reproduction of Direct and Diffuse Sound in Multiple Environments” 129 AES Convention, San Francisco, CA, November 2010.
    J. D. Johnston, “Testing Loudness Models–Real vs. Artificial Content”, 125 AES Convention, New York, NY, October 2-5, 2008.
    J. D. Johnston and Smirnov, Serge, “A Low Complexity Perceptually Tuned Room Correction System”, 123 AES Convention, New York, NY, October 5-8, 2007.
    J. D. Johnston, “Perceptual Audio Coding - A History and Timeline”, 41st Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2007.
    J. Li, and J. D. Johnston, “Perceptually layered scalable coding”, 40th Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp.2125-2129, Pacific Grove, CA, October 2006.
    Blank, T., Atkinson, B., Isard, M., Johnston, J. D., and Olynyk, K., “An Internet Protocol (IP) Sound System,” 117 AES Convention San Francisco, CA, 28-31 October 2004.
    S. Kuo, J. D. Johnston, W. Turin, S. R. Quackenbush, “Covert Audio Watermarking Using Perceptually Tuned Signal Independent Multiband Phase Modulation”, ICASSP 2002, Orlando, FL, May 2002.
    Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “A study of why cross channel prediction is not applicable to perceptual audio coding,” 111 AES Convention, New York, NY, 21-24 September 2001.
    Johnston, J. D., “Automatic loudspeaker directivity control for soundfield reconstruction,” 19th AES International Conference, Bavaria, Germany, 21-24 June 2001.
    Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Enhancing image coders by using spatial noise shaping (SNS),” Proc. Data Compression Conference, 2001.
    Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Spatial noise shaping based on human visual sensitivity and its application to image coding,” Proc. Int. Conf. Image Processing, 2001.
    Johnston, J. D., “Perceptual soundfield reconstruction,” Audio Engineering Society Oct. 2000 Fall Convention Program, Los Angeles, CA, October 2000.
    Johnston, J., Herre, J., Quackenbush, S., Allen, J., Dietz, M., Davidson, G. and Boltze, T., “A tutorial on perceptual audio coding,” Workshop on Perceptual Audio Coding Techniques, 105th AES Conf., San Francisco, CA, 28 Sept. 1998.
    Johnston, J. D., Quackenbush, S., Davidson, G., Brandenburg, K. and Herre, J., “Wavelet, subband and block transforms” in Communications and Multimedia, Akansu, A. N. and Medley, M. J. (Ed.), Kluwer, April 1998.
    Sinha, D., Johnston, J. D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S. R., “The perceptual audio coder (PAC)” in The Digital Signal Processing Handbook, Madisetti, V. K. and Douglas, B. W. (Ed.), CRC Press, IEEE Press, 1998, pp. 42-1 to 42-18, Chapter 42.
    Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Exploiting both time and frequency structure in a system that uses an analysis/synthesis filterbank with high frequency resolution,” AES 103rd Convention, no. preprint 4519, Oct. 1997.
    Johnston, J. D., “A tutorial on perceptual audio coding,” AES 103rd Convention, Oct. 1997.
    Quackenbush, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Noiseless coding of spectral components in MPEG-2 advanced audio coding,” 1997 IEEE ASSP Workshop on Appl. of Sig. Proc. to Audio and Acoust., New Paltz, New York, Oct. 1997.
    Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Brandenburg, K., Quackenbush, S. and et al, “Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio: Advanced audio coding,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG International Standard ISO 13818-7, 1997.
    Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “A continuously signal-adaptive filterbank for high quality perceptual audio coding,” IEEE ASSP Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, Mohonk, NY, 1997.
    Johnston, J. D., Podilchuk, C. and Chen, J-H, “Digital coding (data reduction) methods” in Digital Consumer Elecronics Handbook, Jurgen, R. K. (Ed.), McGraw Hill, 1997, Chapter 3.
    Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Enhancing the performance of perceptual audio coders by using temporal noise shaping (TNS),” AES 101st Convention, no. preprint 4384, 1996.
    Davis, M., Gbur, U., Herre, J., and Johnston, J. D., “MPEG-2 NBC Audio-Stereo and Multichannel Coding Methods” 101 AES Convention, November 1996.
    Johnston, J. D., Sinha, D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S., “AT&T perceptual audio coder (PAC)” in Collected Papers on Digital Audio Bit-Rate Reduction, Gilchrist, N. and Grewin, C. (Ed.), Audio Engineering Society, 1996.
    Johnston, J. D., “Audio coding with filter banks” in Subband and Wavelet Transforms, Akansu, A. N. and Smith, M. J. T. (Ed.), Kluwer, 1996.
    Sinha, D. and Johnston, J. D., “Audio compression at low bit rates using a signal adaptive switched filterbank,” IEEE ASSP, 1996, pp. 1053-1057.
    Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., “Image coding based on models of human vision” in Handbook of Visual Communication, Academic Press, Invited Chapter, 1995.
    Princen, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Audio coding with signal adaptive filterbanks,” IEEE ICASSP, 1995, pp. 3071-3074.
    Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., “Signal compression based on models of human perception,” Proc. IEEE, Oct. 1993, pp. 1385-1422.
    Johnston, J. D. and Ferreira, A. J., “Sum-difference stereo transform coding,” ICASSP '92, March, 1992, pp. II-569-572.
    Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Shoham, Y., “Coding of wideband speech,” Proc. Eurospeech '91, Sept. 1991.
    Brandenburg, K., Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Mahieux, Y. and Schroeder, E. F., “ASPEC: Adaptive spectral entropy coding of high quality music signals,” 90th Convention of the AES, Feb. 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
    Brandenburg, K., Stoll, G., Johnston, J. D. and et al, “Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 mb./s audio,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG: International Standard ISO 11172-3, 1991.
    Johnston, J. D. and Brandenburg, K., “Wideband coding - Perceptual considerations for speech and music” in Advances in Speech Signal Processing, Furui and Sondhi (Ed.), Marcel Dekker, 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
    Brandenburg, K. and Johnston, J. D., “Second generation perceptual audio coding: The hybrid coder,” AES 88th Conv. Preprint, March 1990.
    Safranek, R. J., Johnston, J. D. and Rosenholtz, R. E., “A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder,” Proc. SPIE Symp. Human Vision & Electronic Imaging: Models, Methods & Applications, Santa Clara, CA, Feb. 1990.
    Johnston, J. D., “Digital audio - Future trends in quantization, storage, and compression,” AES 7th Intn'l. Conf. Audio in Digital Times, May 1989.
    Johnston, J. D., “Perceptual transform coding of wideband stereo signals,” ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1993-1996.
    Safranek, R. J. and Johnston, J. D., “A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder with image dependant quantization and post quantization data compression,” ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1945-1948.
    Johnston, J. D., “Transform coding of audio signals using perceptual noise criteria,” IEEE Jour. Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, Feb 1988, pp. 314-323.
    Johnston, J. D., “Estimation of perceptual entropy using noise masking criteria,” ICASSP '88 Record, 1988, pp. 2524-2527.
    Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J. H., “The analog voice privacy system,” AT&T Tech. Jour., vol. 66, no. 1, Jan-Feb 1987, pp. 119-131.
    Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J. H., “The analog voice privacy system,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1986, pp. 341-344.
    Elko, G. W., Flanagan, J. L. and Johnston, J. D., “Computer-steered microphone arrays for large room teleconferencing,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Sig. Processing to Audio and Acous., New Paltz, NY, 1986, Paper 1.6.
    Flanagan, J. L., Johnston, J. D., Zahn, R. and Elko, G., “Computer-steered microphone arrays for sound transduction in large rooms,” JASA, vol. 78(5), Nov 1985, pp. 1508-1518.
    Cox, R. V., Snyder, J. H., Crochiere, R. E., Bock, D. E. and Johnston, J. D., “Testing of wideband digital coders,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1984, pp. 19.3.1-4.
    Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time implementation of time domain, harmonic scaling of speech for rate modification and coding,” IEEE Trans. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, vol. ASSP-31, Feb 1983, pp. 258-272, Also in IEEE Jour. of Solid State Circuits, Vol. SC-18, 10-24, Feb 1983.
    Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., “A 9.6 Kb/s speech coder,” Bell Syst. Tech. Jour., vol. 61, no. 9, Nov 1982, pp. 2263-2288.
    Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time speech coding,” IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. COM-30, Apr 1982, pp. 621-634.
    Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., “An implementation of time domain harmonic scaling with application to speech coding,” Proc. ICC, 1982, pp. 4G.1.1-4.
    Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., “A 9.6 Kb/s speech coder using the Bell Laboratories DSP integrated circuit,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1982, pp. 1692-1695.
    Crochiere, R. E., Randolph, M. A., Upton, J. W. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time implementation of sub-band coding on a programmable integrated circuit,” Proc. ICASSP-81, 1981, pp. 455-458.
    Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Digital transmission of commentary-grade (7kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., Jan 1980.
    Johnston, J. D., “A filter family designed for use in quadrature mirror filter banks,” Proc. ICASSP, 1980, pp. 291-294.
    Steele, R. and Johnston, J. D., “Slope limiting filters for enhancing noisy channel performance of coders,” Proc. ICASSP, 1980.
    Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., “An all digital commentary grade sub-band coder,” Jour. of Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 27, no. 10, Oct 1979.
    Goodman, D. J. and Johnston, J. D., “Sidetone expansion for the regulation of talker loudness,” Electronics Let., vol. 15, no. 16, Aug 1979, pp. 492-493.
    Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., “An all digital commentary grade sub-band coder,” Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. '63 Conf., May 1979.
    Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Digital transmission of commentary-grade (7 kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,” Proc. ICASSP '79, 1979.
    Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Multipurpose hardware for digital coding of audio signal,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., 1978.
    Presti, A. J., Johnston, J. D., Crochiere, R. E. and Goodman, D. J., “A digital sub-band coder for speech communication at 9.6 kb/s,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., vol. 1, Chicago, IL, Jun 1977, pp. 193-197.
    Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Multipurpose hardware for digital coding of audio signal,” Proc. NTC77, 1977.

...
Suppose that there are two observers of a series of moving shapes and colors in the night sky. One is an astronomer, the other an UFO enthusiast. The two see exactly the same moving shapes and colors, from more or less the same angle. The next day the astronomer reports, say, that he casually observed the movement of a comet. The UFO enthusiast, on the other hand, reports that he saw an UFO patrolling the Earth.
...

Since we're picking nits in this thread...

Perhaps you meant meteor. The apparent movement of a comet is a lot less than the apparent movement of the moon, being much further away. This does not keep people from reporting UFOs due to essentially stationary lights in the sky, like the very bright planet Venus.

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Not clear that your analogy does either. At the very least it hasn't clarified anything.

I think he means that the UFO enthusiast is on equal-footing with the astronomer, unless you can come up with another reason why he posted that after telling JJ that his presentation wasn't up to snuff.

I think he means that the UFO enthusiast is on equal-footing with the astronomer, unless you can come up with another reason why he posted that after telling JJ that his presentation wasn't up to snuff.

The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.

I actually take the trouble and try to write as clearly as I can. If I say that something doesn't meet evidentiary standards, I mean exactly that. I didn't pass judgment on the merit of his presentation and have no desire to do so. I don't even suggest that his presentation is not based on evidence. All I said - and it is still true - is that there isn't a single shred of evidence in that four-part piece.

There's a saying that absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence. I think it's correct. But still, we've been at it for a while and until now nothing surfaced. Being mortal beings we must give up at some point. I choose to do so now. Either you, as community, really have no objective evidence for your beliefs or else you won't share. I have no desire of having any contact with a community like that.

If a moderator could lock/delete this thread and my account it would be appreciated.

I will not lock the thread since I imagine that krabapple will want to reiterate that he gave you an additional source of material for your review which you have still ignored up to this point.  I would also like to give JJ any anyone else a chance to respond to things that you have said, including that the placebo effect does not exist (so much for your careful wording and despite recent admission that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

We (and I'm speaking for all moderators and administrators this time) do not and will not delete accounts regardless of the reason.

...
The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.
...

Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?

What I'd like to see is a few studies that show you that the expectations will really cause to hear things differently. Not just cause you to report things differently, like in Medicine, but to actually hear them differently. For the McGurk effect this kind of evidence is widely available.

There is no difference between "hear" and "report" in this context.  So what is your argument now?

The only way you can argue "hear" is if you have electrodes stuck in your auditory nerve. And you're still alive and talking, so you don't.

Quote from: gnusmas997 on 2013-06-20 17:43:07

...
The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.
...

Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?

Yep. Perception requires interpretation.

What I'd like to see is a few studies that show you that the expectations will really cause to hear things differently. Not just cause you to report things differently, like in Medicine, but to actually hear them differently. For the McGurk effect this kind of evidence is widely available.

I thought the issue was that we can't know for sure if the testees aren't falsifying the results.

Why doesn't the same level of skepticism apply to the studies on the McGurk Effect?

How do we know the participants aren't giving the responses they think is expected of them rather than what it was they actually experienced?

The perceptions of the two human beings were identical.

First, you MIGHT be able to argue that the sensory input was the same, but unless you can show that the two sets of eyes tracked the same way around the event (which is extremely unlikely to have happened) not even the sensory input was the same.

The perception is what happens to the sensory input after the brain digests it, and is indeed the same as the interpretation. So you need to fix your semantics so that others can actually understand what you mean.

As to audio, well, did you hear that sound from your computer?  Now you do. I'm pretty sure you weren't aware of it at a conscious level until I said that, but now you are. So, your perception just changed because of what I wrote here.

Q.E.D.

P.S. Go back and read that slide deck again. It contains conclusions from 100+ years of research. I am not going to cite a gazillion journal papers at you, and would suggest that if you want to understand it, you go back to school, take basic hearing, basic cog-psych, and neurochemistry until you finally get it. I'm certainly not going to help out some insulting dude on the internet.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453...mp;l=cf14ce9f3d (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453665308062373&l=cf14ce9f3d)

Pie for strength!

I just perceived the taste of pie and am now hearing my voice as I'm typing this, as opposed to hearing your voice when I read your post.

I just perceived the taste of pie and am now hearing my voice as I'm typing this, as opposed to hearing your voice when I read your post.

I perceive Greynol, tongue gripped between teeth, muttering the words as he pecks at his keyboard. In fact, I.... mmm, pie.

if you want to understand it, you go back to school, take basic hearing, basic cog-psych, and neurochemistry until you finally get it.

I guess just a fair amount of reading from good (unevidenced?) takes on the matter will do it, if you have an open mind. Most of what I've learnt about audio, if not all, comes from years of lurking these forums. (Maybe you could add reading comprehension to that, JJ  )

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453...mp;l=cf14ce9f3d (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453665308062373&l=cf14ce9f3d)

Pie for strength!

That's just cruel.

I'm certainly not going to help out some insulting dude on the internet.

Where did I insult anyone? If you're talking about my statement that I don't want to have anything to with this community, that's not an insult. I don't have anything to do with any church either. It's a mutually benefitial arrangement and perfectly respectul, the very opposite of insulting.

I demand rigorous scientific evidence before I accept an unusual phenomenon. If you're satisfied just with your lengthy experience in the field, good for you. I hope we can agree to go our separate ways without any hard feelings. If that's not possible then at least know that I didn't intend to insult or harm you in any way.

Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?

The astronomer didn't really see the comet - he saw some moving shapes and colors. The UFO enthusiast didn't really see an UFO - he saw some moving shapes and colors. Clearly something else, other what they saw, caused them to report their perceptions differently. I'd say this something else was their different beliefs but that's really irrelevant to the discussion. Was irrelevant, I'm out of here - you can continue if you want. No hard feelings.

unusual phenomenon

If you say so...



...then again people must have thought this about Einstein's Special Relativity and I imagine some will still refuse to believe its existence because someone wasn't willing to provide them with the prerequisite knowledge, including those who use GPS.

Yes, those pesky neuro scientists, what do they know anyway?

I demand rigorous scientific evidence before I accept an unusual phenomenon.

Ookaayy....

And when somebody with the chops to hand you the results gives it to you?

Is it the least bit unusual? I rather think it is more or less a daily, or nightly, experience. That doesn't mean there isn't any value in quantifying, or otherwise rigorously exploring it, but it hardly seems to strain credence.