"Psychoacoustic researchers" usually have a technical background.
In the physical dimension, only a few measurements are required to obtain sufficient validity and reliability.
When they conclude how measurements in physics affect hearing they make a big mistake.
Now "psychoacoustics researchers" have left the physical dimension and drawn new conclusions in the psychological dimension. In the psychological dimension, completely different conditions apply to reach reasonable validity and reliability. Usually, an extremely large number of measurements and many subjects within the psychological dimension are required to obtain any validity or reliability at all.
Floyd Toole and Sean Olive have some studies where these factors are almost met.
Are there other replicated studies where these factors are met?
In the physical dimension, only a few measurements are required to obtain sufficient validity and reliability.
When they conclude how measurements in physics affect hearing they make a big mistake.
Now "psychoacoustics researchers" have left the physical dimension and drawn new conclusions in the psychological dimension. In the psychological dimension, completely different conditions apply to reach reasonable validity and reliability. Usually, an extremely large number of measurements and many subjects within the psychological dimension are required to obtain any validity or reliability at all.
Floyd Toole and Sean Olive have some studies where these factors are almost met.
Are there other replicated studies where these factors are met?
Last edited:
