4 ms·
> Some VLFs were above the predicted perceptual thresholds, although consciously undetectable. Because VLFs were relatively near thresholds (that were determine
by elliottkember 4y ago
> Some VLFs were above the predicted perceptual thresholds, although consciously undetectable. Because VLFs were relatively near thresholds (that were determined in silence) whereas non-VLFs were far above thresholds (see supplemental material), we believe that auditory masking of the VLFs contributed to their being undetectable.
- 1970-01-01 4y ago>we believe that auditory masking of the VLFs contributed to their being undetectable. Not good enough for science.
- voxic11 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking is pretty well established scientifically.
- 1970-01-01 4y agoThat's for audible sound! One can't just assume it applies to inaudible frequencies.
- elliottkember 4y ago> 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%), and a Bayesian t test on participants’ rates of correct responses indicated substantial evidence for the null hypothesis — that participants could not detect the presence/absence of VLFs (n = 17; prior = Cauchy distribution centred on 0 with width = 0.707; BF0+ = 4.36; Figure 1F). Do I have to quote the whole article for you to read it?