4 ms·
But the article itself states that this difference was not statistically significant, and should therefore be attributed to randomness?
by svantana 12y ago
But the article itself states that this difference was not statistically significant, and should therefore be attributed to randomness?
- kmike84 12y agoThe article does state that the difference is statistically significant: "Curiously, the musician group seemed to select the 16-bit dithered Vivaldi as the "better" sounding version (p-value 0.047)."
- ZoFreX 12y agoI'm not convinced it is, though. If you take a sample of 140 people and divide it into a dozen different cohorts, it's pretty likely that one of those groups will show a difference that would be statistically significant if observed across the whole sample.
- Steuard 12y agoHow many individual comparisons were made throughout the article? A dozen? Two? You'd expect a p-value less than 0.05 by chance about one time in 20, and indeed this p-value is just marginally below that threshold. I wouldn't view this one result as particularly significant in that context.