Is ‘reverse’ expectation bias a thing?

[Travis]

It seems to me "bias" is better construed more broadly as a range of perceptual errors - which arise from the way our brain works in trying to understand reality - continuous with all sorts of perceptual biases like optical or audible illusions.

Trying to understand why it would be better to construe it that way.

As far as I know, the sciences tend to separate human perception and errors (psychophysics) from forms of bias. The former is what we all perceive, right or wrong, based on the way humans perceive things whether sight, sound, taste, smell. The latter is what we might perceive based on our experience, possible reward, and the other factors mentioned in posts above.

Why is it better to lump them all together?

Loudness for example. We all know Fletcher, certain frequencies sound louder to us all because of our auditory system was designed/evolved that way. Listening to a band, musical work, a DAC, pair of speakers, whatever can be pleasing, displeasing, or no different because of bias (and all of the sub-categories thereof). Don’t we need to keep them separate to understand what is causing what?

 

[JaMaSt]

As far as I know, the sciences tend to separate human perception and errors (psychophysics) from forms of bias.

I agree. When I use the term "bias" I am typically referring to a weighting of one sense modality over another in a particular multi-modal percept. It can be confusing. The McGurk effect illustrates this when we see 'fa' instead of hear 'ba'.

 

[MattHooper]

Hasn't worked that way for me. I mean I haven't really "downsized" per se. But I've stopped up-sizing, lol. I've come to terms with the reality that I'm not going to hear anything different by changing an amp or a dac. And while I might hear something different by changing speakers, that difference isn't likely to be meaningful improvement...it will just be slight difference - a difference that will largely be mitigated by the process of EQing the speakers for my room. I don't regret anything. It's nice to be off the never-ending "upgrade" treadmill. It's also nice to not feel like I'm missing out on anything because I can't afford (or don't want) to drop $3000 on a dac or $500 on interconnect cables.

So much of this is subjective: how "big" or meaningful any particular sonic difference will vary among individuals...and even vary among individuals themselves over time.

On ASR we often bemoan the way "subjectivsts" ascribe things to the equipment itself which are in fact subjective reactions. We are all susceptible to this type of thinking in one way or another. For instance there is a train of thought that pops up here now and again that leaving aside all the woo-woo tweaks and false ideas about audio, and simply pursuing well designed, neutral gear, can "get you off the audiophile merry-go-round." And indeed some members have attested to this in their own experience. But that's really another way of ascribing to the equipment what is really a subjective, somewhat arbitrary result. The success depends on the person's attitude changing; not the gear per se. That's why normal people can be satisfied with all manner of audio gear for listening to music, and why even among audiophiles you have people attesting to having "got off the merry-go-round" with all manner of audio gear, from ASR-approved performers to...you name the type of gear.

It's generally the person...where they are at, their shifting priorities at any time...not the gear that will dictate what someone is satisfied with.

 

[Axo1989]

And to stir the pot a bit I'm a firm believer that if you are presented with a fake frequency response graph that shows an elevated 6 kHz dB spike you'll hear that spike. There are limits of course, but our ability to hear such changes is objectively limited and can be influenced by what we see as much as by what we hear. It's an expectation bias.

Hence "listen, then measure". And "listen again" too.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

So much of this is subjective: how "big" or meaningful any particular sonic difference will vary among individuals...and even vary among individuals themselves over time.

On ASR we often bemoan the way "subjectivsts" ascribe things to the equipment itself which are in fact subjective reactions. We are all susceptible to this type of thinking in one way or another. For instance there is a train of thought that pops up here now and again that leaving aside all the woo-woo tweaks and false ideas about audio, and simply pursuing well designed, neutral gear, can "get you off the audiophile merry-go-round." And indeed some members have attested to this in their own experience. But that's really another way of ascribing to the equipment what is really a subjective, somewhat arbitrary result. The success depends on the person's attitude changing; not the gear per se. That's why normal people can be satisfied with all manner of audio gear for listening to music, and why even among audiophiles you have people attesting to having "got off the merry-go-round" with all manner of audio gear, from ASR-approved performers to...you name the type of gear.

It's generally the person...where they are at, their shifting priorities at any time...not the gear that will dictate what someone is satisfied with.

I disagree. For me, "getting off the merry-go-round" is about the realization that there are limitations to what my ears are even capable of delineating (these are pretty-much human limitations but some don't want to admit them) as well as recognizing that I can use measured capabilities of equipment to have an excellent understanding that the equipment is doing what I want it to do. Pursuing well-designed, neutral gear is exactly the goal I wish to achieve. That's the end game for me, and it's easily-achievable. Then, get speakers that have good measured performance, set them up to the best of my abilities in my room, and done. No need to shop for boutique anything because I know it's not going to do anything to improve the sound in anything but imaginary ways.

 

[MattHooper]

Trying to understand why it would be better to construe it that way.

As far as I know, the sciences tend to separate human perception and errors (psychophysics) from forms of bias. The former is what we all perceive, right or wrong, based on the way humans perceive things whether sight, sound, taste, smell. The latter is what we might perceive based on our experience, possible reward, and the other factors mentioned in posts above.

Why is it better to lump them all together?

Loudness for example. We all know Fletcher, certain frequencies sound louder to us all because of our auditory system was designed/evolved that way. Listening to a band, musical work, a DAC, pair of speakers, whatever can be pleasing, displeasing, or no different because of bias (and all of the sub-categories thereof). Don’t we need to keep them separate to understand what is causing what?

I wasn't meaning to lump them all together as if to extinguish the differences among the range of cognitive/perceptual errors. Of course we need to pay attention to each specific type of error and how it arises. But I think perceptual/bias errors can and do share common threads. A cognitive bias is by nature, an operation that you are unaware of that leads to an erroneous perception or belief. The little heuristics or biases are often built in to our thinking - and operate in a way that we are not conscious of, distorting reality. Just as unconscious heuristics - expectations - built in to our perception can result in perceptual errors (e.g. that produce the checkerboard illusion). And cognitive errors, like errors related to our senses, can arise from heuristics that are actually, generally, adaptive, but which misfire in the wrong circumstances.

Lots of biases are not consciously driven, and so aren't necessarily explicable in the sense of 'reward thwarting' but of processes in our thinking that happen without our noticing. I see plenty in this list of cognitive biases that span a continuum from our perceptual biases:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to the specifics of Expectation Bias (especially in the sense used by audiophiles), I already wrote about why I found Iving's characterisation of the Expectation Effect as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy doesn't make sense to me. In many people the very point of the Expectation Effect is that it produces a perception/belief that does *not* conflict with their expectations. So there's no "cognitive dissonance" that arises in the usual Expectation Effect.

 

[MattHooper]

I disagree. For me, "getting off the merry-go-round" is about the realization that there are limitations to what my ears are even capable of delineating (these are pretty-much human limitations but some don't want to admit them) as well as recognizing that I can use measured capabilities of equipment to have an excellent understanding that the equipment is doing what I want it to do. Pursuing well-designed, neutral gear is exactly the goal I wish to achieve. That's the end game for me, and it's easily-achievable. Then, get speakers that have good measured performance, set them up to the best of my abilities in my room, and done. No need to shop for boutique anything because I know it's not going to do anything to improve the sound in anything but imaginary ways.

You've just served to make my point. It started with "for me." Yes, it's you; not the gear that gets you off the merry-go-round.
Most "normies" aren't even on the merry-go-round. They just have their smart speaker, or whatever and they are content. There are audiophiles who say "Maggies" or some planar speaker got them off the merry go round. Or some type of amplification. Or finally "giving up" on measurements/neutrality/accuracy and just relaxing to enjoy some less neutral system, warts and all, because it makes them happy. The solutions for "getting off the merry-go-round" or what satisfies someone are all over the map. It's the individual; not the equipment.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You've just served to make my point. It started with "for me." Yes, it's you; not the gear that gets you off the merry-go-round.
Most "normies" aren't even on the merry-go-round. They just have their smart speaker, or whatever and they are content. There are audiophiles who say "Maggies" or some planar speaker got them off the merry go round. Or some type of amplification. Or finally "giving up" on measurements/neutrality/accuracy and just relaxing to enjoy some less neutral system, warts and all, because it makes them happy. The solutions for "getting off the merry-go-round" or what satisfies someone are all over the map. It's the individual; not the equipment.

The specific thing that has essentially ended my desire to buy ANY new stuff for sound quality purposes is the realization that the road to good sound is paved with objectivity lol. It's not a subjective or objective choice - it's a conscious one. It's eliminated the guessing game and removed the illusions about the process.

But of course, that doesn't mean someone can't consciously decide to ignore everything and just listen to whatever and be happy. Or just be a normie and listen to a bluetooth speaker. All well and good. But the audiophile tradition has long been one of endlessly upgrading and switching out different bits and pieces in a never-ending quest for that perfectly revealing sound system - because they've been convinced that literally everything makes an audible (usually positive) difference. The whole industry is built upon that really. And it's mostly not true. Once you leave that stuff behind and focus on the stuff that really makes a difference (speakers in rooms primarily) the process becomes pretty straight forward really.

 

[Chrispy]

More of the opinion it's simply expectation bias, the particular orientation described doesn't matter.

 

[Axo1989]

The specific thing that has essentially ended my desire to buy ANY new stuff for sound quality purposes is the realization that the road to good sound is paved with objectivity lol. It's not a subjective or objective choice - it's a conscious one. It's eliminated the guessing game and removed the illusions about the process.

But of course, that doesn't mean someone can't consciously decide to ignore everything and just listen to whatever and be happy. Or just be a normie and listen to a bluetooth speaker. All well and good. But the audiophile tradition has long been one of endlessly upgrading and switching out different bits and pieces in a never-ending quest for that perfectly revealing sound system - because they've been convinced that literally everything makes an audible (usually positive) difference. The whole industry is built upon that really. And it's mostly not true. Once you leave that stuff behind and focus on the stuff that really makes a difference (speakers in rooms primarily) the process becomes pretty straight forward really.

That’s great, but if you recall that 300B tube amp AB test a few months back, you reckoned you couldn’t consistently hear a difference or assign a preference. But I did, via the blind test. I asked you about the hum, distortion and rolled-off highs I noticed. If those things really are inaudible to you, why would I think your perceptions and consequent judgements are meaningful/useful to me?

That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with your choices (presumably they work for you) or that I’m on an upgrade treadmill (I tend to buy new stuff when old stuff breaks).

 

[Travis]

So there's no "cognitive dissonance" that arises in the usual Expectation Effect.

I know the answer to my question (why it was better to construe them the same) is in there somewhere, but it’s way beyond this simple country lawyer. Appreciate you taking a shot at trying to have me understand your viewpoint.

 

[Travis]

And it's mostly not true. Once you leave that stuff behind and focus on the stuff that really makes a difference (speakers in rooms primarily) the process becomes pretty straight forward really.

Agree with that. However, I think, at least for me, is hearing very, very good speakers growing up, and knowing what great speakers in a good room can sound like. I said “I want a system that sounds as good as that.”

Knowing what great speakers can sound like, getting those speakers and have them set up in a good room can be a life long journey in itself.

 

[Andysu]

I think it is also important to recognise that cognitive biases are happening at a subconscious level. Not necessarily based on what we consciously (for example) expect - but what the subconscious brain has learned to expect over your lifetime based on everything perceived in the moment.

Here is an example. Even when you consciously know how your brain is being fooled - it is still fooled.

all i can hear now is sheep bar , bar

 

[thecheapseats]

bias cuts both ways - additive or subtractive... product advertising and opinions have always reinforced additive bias... ASR product measurements provide an extremely valuable subtractive tool - as they are an effective first sieve of product features and specs... pick your poison...

 

[MattHooper]

I know the answer to my question (why it was better to construe them the same) is in there somewhere, but it’s way beyond this simple country lawyer. Appreciate you taking a shot at trying to have me understand your viewpoint.

I tried to zero in on the similarities I was drawing between cognitive and perceptual errors.

Sorry if you felt I didn’t answer your question.
No doubt my failing.

 

[CapMan]

On ASR we often bemoan the way "subjectivsts" ascribe things to the equipment itself which are in fact subjective reactions.

Also - it sounds ‘different’ translates to it sounds ‘better’ in the biased mind; I guess this maybe more evident for speakers than electronics ?

 

[Travis]

I tried to zero in on the similarities I was drawing between cognitive and perceptual errors.

Sorry if you felt I didn’t answer your question.
No doubt my failing.

I know your answer addressed my question, sincerely I do. It was just too late at night for my simple mind to process it out. Was simply trying to thank you for the time and effort. I will give it another read today to see if

 

[krabapple]

As I’ve become more acutely aware of the evils of expectation bias I wonder if I am now suffering from something I’d call reverse expectation bias.

In my definition this is the expectation that there should be no difference in sound (even if one might exist) leading to not hearing / observing any change in sound quality.

I’m half serious / half joking here! I no longer trust my ears

If this really worries you, the answer is to include positive controls in your listening tests. Something with a small but should-be-audible difference.

But humans seem to be wired to 'believe' that if sound-making devices A and B are different -- in looks, name, reputation, price etc or in extremis, even just being *two things* rather than *one* -- they will sound different. Not that they will sound the same.

Even if *one thing* is presented as both A and B (without telling the listener it's the same thing), there are plenty of listeners who will think they sound different. This is a classic 'phantom switch' test and when I am king, every 'golden ear audiophile' will have to take one.

 

[CapMan]

If this really worries you, the answer is to include positive controls in your listening tests

I would value some guidance on what this might look like. Many thanks to everyone for posting. Crazy thing the human brain.

 

[krabapple]

I would value some guidance on what this might look like. Many thanks to everyone for posting. Crazy thing the human brain.

The most rigorous audio DBTs involve training to hear subtle difference. One way is to start with a big difference, then gradually reduce the level of difference, testing at each step. Eventually a threshold will be reached, beyond which the listener can't tell A from B. Then it's time to take the 'real' test.

What 'difference' should be used, is a question. It can be simple output level difference; it can be distortion level difference. It depends on what you are comparing.

Where feasible/ethical, positive controls are de rigeur in science, btw.