Online Survey Testing Music Perception

[Donya Quick]

Hi everyone! Aside from being a casual composer and long time lurker here, I am a PhD student at Yale University's Department of Computer Science and have been doing research in computer music. Within that field, it is unfortunately very common for musical models to be proposed but never formally tested – in fact, there is no consensus on what procedures or metrics to use in some cases. In an attempt to bridge that gap, I have been developing a participant study to test various hypotheses about algorithm performance and music perception. I am currently running a pilot study version of the experiment to test the robustness of the system (lag, audio playback problems, etc.) on various platforms and internet connections. If you would like to participate, the pilot study is here:

http://www.donyaquick.com/php/public_experiment.html

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to listen to short clips of music and guess whether the music clip was created by a human composer or computer algorithm. You will also be asked questions about your musical background (i.e. how many years of musical training you have had). In all, the study should take no more than 20 minutes to complete.

If there are any questions, I am happy to discuss the nature of my work in general terms here, although obviously I can't give away some details about this particular experiment until all data from the final study has been collected. Also, the examples are randomized, so there is no way to do a direct comparison of answers from one run to another.

If you experience any technical problems, please let me know the conditions under which they occurred, such as what browser/device you were using at the time. Some browsers (particularly older versions) do not support the parts of HTML5 that the study uses to deliver audio. The study has also not been tested on any mobile devices, so I have no idea whether it will display/perform correctly on tablets, phones, etc.

[Tyler Hughes]

But isn't that the nature of a lot of studies? The relationship between those being tested and the administer is much different than this form. Its not an equal relationship and sometimes being blind to the nature of the survey is in the best interest of those administering the test. 

And to Michael's point, assuming that Donya is being truthful about her credentials as a PhD Student at Yale, we can also assume that she too knows a lot about science and the scientific process?

Additionally the fact that she hasn't posted on this thread in a while now leads me to assume that she has moved on already  and possibly have gotten the data she needs or at least contributed to the conversation as much as she needs to. 

Kristofer P.D.Q. Emerig said:

I do understand FZ's point here. Due to the lack of explanatory material, and the blind nature of the survey, he apparently feels that Donya is leaving her testies hanging, with no support.
 
michael diemer said:

I know that Fred is extremely capable of defending himself, and will do so in short order. But, having the psychology background I do, I must observe that the reason Fred is being so "testy" about this is that he has a profound understanding of sceince. In fact, Donya would do well to listen to his criticisms, and learn from them.

[Tyler Hughes]

but did she not answer 

Fredrick zinos said:

Asked and answered.

[Tyler Hughes]

She also gives a very detailed description of her current research on her website, don't know if anyone checked that. but again I can only assume so much.

http://www.donyaquick.com

[Tyler Hughes]

You're not answering why that matters to you how many people are needed or if its phony or not? Could it just be that she doesnt know yet herself, or simply that you are not privy to even the most trivial information?

Really the question comes down to, why have you spent 7 pages of this thread on this topic? Thats a lot of hours spent trying to get someone to tell you some information.
Im here because I have a few hours before choir to do really nothing. 
Fredrick zinos said:

Tyler, try to pay attention and follow along here. You asked me a question which has been asked and answered. Your  question "but why. what do you gain from knowing?" has been answered by me saying that I suspect the entire "study" business is  phony. I asked a simple question "how many people (subjects )do you need in the study to be able to draw a conclusion?"  that is a  question that in no way would compromise the study or any of its 'secret" components. The answer was "it secret and I can't tell you."

[Tyler Hughes]

You say these things with such certainty. However, you are making these assumptions that she doesnt know what she is doing or doesnt have a number solely on this thread alone and the lack of information she has shared with you. How do you know she doesnt know how many subjects would be required to come to a conclusion or how to calculate the number of subjects that would be required? She doesnt have to prove she knows how to make a conclusion to you since you are not the professor overseeing her research. You are simply the subject or potential subject (Depending if you took the survey or not)

Fredrick zinos said:

Tyler,  I think you are finally on to something. The designer of the study doesn't know how many subjects would be required to come to a conclusion. In the real world, you don't even begin a study until you know that basic fact. The number of subjects and how they are selected (or de-selected) is part of the protocol. In a university or other academic  setting the protocol usually has to be approved by whoever is in an oversight position.  Moreover, I would wager that the originator of the 'study" doesn't know how to calculate the number of subjects that would be required. 

[Tyler Hughes]

That analogy doesn't really work when all you have is a thread and an avatar.

[Tyler Hughes]

Who said any of those research topics were meant for peer reviews to begin with. Could have just been class assign or class project. Who knows except her and her circle of friends and colleagues which we are none of.

And I'm here for entertainment.

[roger stancill]

Fred, you mentioned the word belief...

       I'm starting to believe you are a phuk-a- putz.

       ... sorry Donya, the soils not good here for planting.

           tho' I hope you'll come back again after the war of           absurdity is over.  RS

 

      

Fredrick zinos said:

RE: the duck....Use your imagination.

BTW I'm interested in the motivation for your rather frenzied defense of a "study" that is pure baloney.

Moreover, yes I did look at Ms. Quick's website and yes there are ever so many research projects and lofty phrases (and some origami). What I don't see is any peer review publications. Why not? Could it be that previous "research" like the one proposed above, doesn't reach the level of anything more than anecdotal observation?

[Tyler Hughes]

I referred to her other work not to establish that she is published but that she does research. On there she has her masters thesis which is probably not in any peer reviewed article because it's just a required document for graduation.
I also linked the site so those interested can get a little more info on the current project, and to provide more background on the person herself, which everyone here seems to know so well.
I'm not championing her authenticity at all because I don't know. And neither do you. You only have what she has provided. You have made an assumption on this persons entire education based off so little information. Not only that but have been trying to persuade everyone to your conclusion of her.
It almost sounds personal, but I can only assume.

[Gavin Brown]

In the mail you get which notifies you that someone has added a message to the thread there is a link you can click which turns off the sending of future notifications