I find it amusing - and ironic, Svart-Hvitt, that you were utterly and completely unable to even suspect, much less recognize that Floyd had stumbled upon and recognized "new scientific findings" early in his acoustics and hearing research. You absolutely failed to acknowledge the possibility that there were valid reasons for excluding individuals from a test program that had specific goals - a program that was not simply pure "basic" research. (Although Floyd's findings were typical of basic research programs.)
And this after 13 pages of railing against ASR members for "excluding possibilities" - perhaps all of that pseudo-intellectual philosophical bloviation and several gish-gallops of marginally relevant references was for naught!
What came out of the discussion was that 1/3 of the population in Toole (1986) were, for practical purposes, deaf.
At the beginning of Toole (1986), all (i.e. 3/3) were described thusly:
«The listeners who participated in the subjective mea surements from which the present data are taken ranged from professional sound-recording engineers to audio philes. Many were musicians, but all of them had a background of serious critical listening».
In other words, no information on 1/3 being deaf.
Dr. Toole is a gentleman, wary of negative words when describing others, so he described the deaf participants as having high «judgment variability» and of low «consistency within individuals and the closest agreement across the group of individuals». That’s an ornate way of describing «deaf»; understandable, though, given the social setting he was in, surrounded by «golden ears» of high esteem that were in fact deaf for the purpose of listening critically.
The subsequent discussion by ASR members didn’t point to the fact that 1/3 of participants were deaf.
Dr. Toole’s participation casted light on the historic events as if he opened a door behind which there is information that was previously not given explicitly in Toole (1986). In another thread there is a discussion on Bayesian statistics, where I used the Monty Hall doors as a fun example of Bayesian.
In this thread I posted a question, see below:
- - - - - - -
Just a thought here concerning the robustness of some competently managed listening tests.
Say you read about a survey where 60 percent preferred a to b, and 40 percent preferred b to a.
What you didn’t know before you checked the footnotes in the article, is the fact that there were 100 participants in the survey, of which 30 participants preferred a to b and 20 participants preferred b to a. 50 participants were kept outside of the survey statistics.
Before you decide to call the author of the article, you see that there are two possible explanations why 50 participants were removed from the survey:
1) 50 participants heard a difference between a and b but couldn’t make up their mind which was the best.
2) 50 participants didn’t hear a difference between a and b.
Is it ok to say that 60 percent preferred a to b, or is the real number 30 percent?
Source:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...atistics-in-listening-tests.8248/#post-209067