Controlled experimentation is how psychoacoustics gets knowledge from subjective reports
Evidence
Psychoacoustic testing involves careful experimental design to ensure that the results obtained can be truly attributed to whatever aspect of the signal is being used as the controlled variable. This process is called con trolled experimentation. A starting point for experimental design may well be a hunch or something we believe to be the case from our own listen ing experience, or from anecdotal evidence. A controlled experiment allows such listening experiences to be carefully explored in terms of which aspects of a sound affect them and how. Psychologists call a behavioral response, such as a listening experience, the dependent variable, and those aspects that might affect it are called the independent variables. — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 2360
Categorization
Category: Craft and Method
- XREF: Dependent/independent variable framework connects to experimental design generally, and to how the reader’s own listening-test design would proceed.
Related
- Accurate anechoic data plus blind listening tests make psychoacoustic correlations emerge quickly (similarity 0.87)
- Controlled listening experiments use pilot tests and counterbalanced stimulus orders to tame independent variables (similarity 0.86)
- Every listening test has extraneous variables that must be controlled (similarity 0.85)
- Pilot tests and controlled constants eliminate confounding in listening experiments (similarity 0.85)
- Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions (similarity 0.84)
- Auditory experimentation resembles measuring an unreliable device against an unpredictable system (similarity 0.82)
- Psychoacoustic knowledge rests entirely on subjective listening tests, not direct measurement (similarity 0.82)
- Listening-test statistics must inform experimental design from the outset (similarity 0.82)
- Presentation method, room acoustics, and listener state are independent variables in listening experiments (similarity 0.81)
- Subjective listening tests map manipulated acoustic variables to measured responses. (similarity 0.81)
- Simple forced-choice listening tests order noise samples by annoyance (similarity 0.81)
- Psychoacoustic findings are experimentally established yet often lack anatomical or physical explanation. (similarity 0.81)
- Subjective listening tests require repetition and randomization to be statistically valid (similarity 0.81)
- ANOVA tests whether independent variables affect listening-test outcomes (similarity 0.80)
- Trained listeners can verbally connect sound preference to measurable on-axis and listening-window curves (similarity 0.80)
Broader Connections
- Controlled experiments trace sound-feature variables against listeners’ behavioral responses
#expands(0.88) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 2378 - Pilot tests and controlled constants eliminate confounding in listening experiments
#expands(0.82) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 2365 - Loudness growth with intensity requires experimental quantification, not intuition
#exemplifies(0.78) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 705