Gear / Technical Help > TS Knowledge Base / Archive

AES Paper: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

<< < (4/4)

aaronji:
^^  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, as we have a fundamental philosophical divide with respect to the tautness of the hypothesis and it's relationship to the meaningfulness and interpretability of the results...


--- Quote from: joshr on July 21, 2016, 12:31:16 PM ---Also, the null hypothesis in this case results in exactly what you said, ‘nobody would ever score higher (or lower) than 50% in a sufficiently large number of trials.’ To clarify, suppose randomly you called the correct answer A half the time and randomly you called it B the other half, but that there is no way anyone can distinguish between them. Then it doesn’t matter how someone answers, it still converges on 50% correct.

--- End quote ---


I didn't state it very well for the case of the null being true, but, even when the null holds, the intra-individual results are not truly independent (i.e. not coin flips).  Even in simple tests like this, there are a wide range of subtle individual biases and others introduced by the experimental design.  So that non-independence is a factor in analyses like these and should be accounted for; this is generally difficult to do at the meta-analysis level (although if you had the individual results for all of the studies, you could do it no problem with a linear mixed effects model), but it does complicate the interpretation of the results.


--- Quote from: joshr on July 21, 2016, 12:38:03 PM ---The editorial staff of the journal are listed at http://www.aes.org/journal/masthead.cfm . They have a much larger pool of reviewers that they pick from, and also use outside experts. I think they aim for a minimum of three reviews per paper. That said, its always a struggle (as is the case for many journals) to maintain a talented and diverse pool of reviewers, and its hard to find just the right outside experts. I'm sure that they would welcome more potential reviewers.

--- End quote ---
 

Interesting.  Thanks.  At least in theory, it works a little differently in my field, in that anyone is a potential reviewer based on relevant experience.  In reality, editors usually have some "go to" people, though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page