3 ms·

Some people may find this offensive, but try to imagine the person who made the study was deaf in the low range of frequencies and did the study without getting

Some people may find this offensive, but try to imagine the person who made the study was deaf in the low range of frequencies and did the study without getting it reviewed by anybody. Now read it again...

chaorace 4y ago
Ok... I'm failing to form the abstract connections necessary to understand the point you're getting at here. Is the implication that it's inherently unethical to subject others to stimuli under the presumption that the stimulation is uniformly harmless? Surely that's the whole point of studies like this; to rigorously probe such assumptions within the relative safety of a controlled experiment?
- mkmk3 4y ago
  I think the parent is saying that under those conditions, the "undetectable" part of the title may be in question.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    I just find funny the idea that people might spun research into something they aren't able to do themselves but is completely obvious to everybody else. Not saying it is the case here, just pointing a potential for humour.
    - kfarr 4y ago
      Red / green colorblind researcher: groundbreaking study shows invisible wavelength differentials influence "stop" and "go" behavior in motorists!
      - twawaaay 4y ago
        Exactly!
querez 4y ago
Isn't this addressed in the 2nd paragraph? > To confirm that the VLFs were not consciously detectable, 17 new participants (one of whom participated in the concert experiment) completed a two-alternative forced choice task using the same VLF speakers in the LIVELab. On each trial, participants heard two pairs of 3.5 s excerpts from the concert audio and indicated which pair’s excerpts were different (all excerpts in the trial were identical except for the presence or absence of VLFs in one excerpt). Participants performed at chance (mean 49.8% correct, SD = 4.56%)
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
They write: > To confirm that the VLFs were not consciously detectable, 17 new participants (one of whom participated in the concert experiment) completed a two-alternative forced choice task using the same VLF speakers in the LIVELab. On each trial, participants heard two pairs of 3.5 s excerpts from the concert audio and indicated which pair’s excerpts were different...participants could not detect the presence/absence of VLFs. But yeah, not to be offensive, my initial reaction to this claim is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here's their claimed spectral production during the concert: https://i.imgur.com/SX1A3SF.png https://i.imgur.com/SX1A3SF.png 35 Hz sound at a weighted sound pressure level comparable to other bass audio should be audible. They write in the full article: > At the lower end of the VLF range (10 Hz), intensities were below the threshold for auditory perception, and higher VLFs were above thresholds. Non-VLF intensities were by comparison, much higher relative to thresholds. Given that thresholds were determined by measurements using pure tones in silence, it is likely that in the context of the music at this concert, the non-VLF sound would mask all above-threshold VLFs. Did they play the follow-up study at the same volume as the full concert? Either the VLF sounds are imperceptible and dancers should have no change in activity, or they're detectable and test participants should be able to distinguish their presence/absence, or your test is screwed up. We had a similar issue come up when I was at school: To deter pigeons from pooping in the courtyard, the school installed "ultrasonic" bird deterrent speakers. Students complained about getting headaches from the intermittent, piercing, grating whistle that the speakers produced. (It was like nails on a chalkboard...just remembering it makes my skin crawl!) The elderly building maintenance staff could not hear them, and claimed that the speakers were inaudible, that no one could hear sounds over 20,000 Hz so our objections were unfounded and meaningless. We didn't have a lab setup like the one in the article, but just turning our backs to the flowerbed while the maintenance staff plugged it in and unplugged it was enough to prove that yeah, more than half of the students (including all of the students who complained) could hear it.
- uoaei 4y ago
  There's also a difference between hearing sounds and feeling them. It's not clear if the participants were exposed to the sounds through headphones or through massive sound systems. I'd hypothesize that the latter would probably have a much, much stronger effect, just based on personal experience.

chaorace 4y ago

Ok... I'm failing to form the abstract connections necessary to understand the point you're getting at here. Is the implication that it's inherently unethical to subject others to stimuli under the presumption that the stimulation is uniformly harmless? Surely that's the whole point of studies like this; to rigorously probe such assumptions within the relative safety of a controlled experiment?

mkmk3 4y ago
I think the parent is saying that under those conditions, the "undetectable" part of the title may be in question.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  I just find funny the idea that people might spun research into something they aren't able to do themselves but is completely obvious to everybody else. Not saying it is the case here, just pointing a potential for humour.
  - kfarr 4y ago
    Red / green colorblind researcher: groundbreaking study shows invisible wavelength differentials influence "stop" and "go" behavior in motorists!
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      Exactly!

querez 4y ago

Isn't this addressed in the 2nd paragraph? > To confirm that the VLFs were not consciously detectable, 17 new participants (one of whom participated in the concert experiment) completed a two-alternative forced choice task using the same VLF speakers in the LIVELab. On each trial, participants heard two pairs of 3.5 s excerpts from the concert audio and indicated which pair’s excerpts were different (all excerpts in the trial were identical except for the presence or absence of VLFs in one excerpt). Participants performed at chance (mean 49.8% correct, SD = 4.56%)

LeifCarrotson 4y ago

They write: > To confirm that the VLFs were not consciously detectable, 17 new participants (one of whom participated in the concert experiment) completed a two-alternative forced choice task using the same VLF speakers in the LIVELab. On each trial, participants heard two pairs of 3.5 s excerpts from the concert audio and indicated which pair’s excerpts were different...participants could not detect the presence/absence of VLFs. But yeah, not to be offensive, my initial reaction to this claim is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here's their claimed spectral production during the concert: https://i.imgur.com/SX1A3SF.png https://i.imgur.com/SX1A3SF.png 35 Hz sound at a weighted sound pressure level comparable to other bass audio should be audible. They write in the full article: > At the lower end of the VLF range (10 Hz), intensities were below the threshold for auditory perception, and higher VLFs were above thresholds. Non-VLF intensities were by comparison, much higher relative to thresholds. Given that thresholds were determined by measurements using pure tones in silence, it is likely that in the context of the music at this concert, the non-VLF sound would mask all above-threshold VLFs. Did they play the follow-up study at the same volume as the full concert? Either the VLF sounds are imperceptible and dancers should have no change in activity, or they're detectable and test participants should be able to distinguish their presence/absence, or your test is screwed up. We had a similar issue come up when I was at school: To deter pigeons from pooping in the courtyard, the school installed "ultrasonic" bird deterrent speakers. Students complained about getting headaches from the intermittent, piercing, grating whistle that the speakers produced. (It was like nails on a chalkboard...just remembering it makes my skin crawl!) The elderly building maintenance staff could not hear them, and claimed that the speakers were inaudible, that no one could hear sounds over 20,000 Hz so our objections were unfounded and meaningless. We didn't have a lab setup like the one in the article, but just turning our backs to the flowerbed while the maintenance staff plugged it in and unplugged it was enough to prove that yeah, more than half of the students (including all of the students who complained) could hear it.

uoaei 4y ago
There's also a difference between hearing sounds and feeling them. It's not clear if the participants were exposed to the sounds through headphones or through massive sound systems. I'd hypothesize that the latter would probably have a much, much stronger effect, just based on personal experience.