[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Experiments with large N
This issue nicely highlights the need to report effect size measures. With a
large enough sample, even the smallest of effects will show up as reliable!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
> [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Zatorre
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:42 PM
> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Experiments with large N
> Huge samples are very nice if you can get 'em, though such is not always
> the case, alas.
> So one thing that I would like to see from people who do have gigantic N
> is to do some analyses to determine at what point the data reach some
> asymptote. In other words, if you've collected 1,000,000 people, at what
> earlier point in your sampling could you have stopped, and come to the
> identical conclusions with valid statistics?
> Obviously, the answer to this question will be different for different
> types of studies with different types of variance and so forth. But
> having the large N allows one to perform this calculation, so that next
> time one does a similar study, one could reasonably stop after reaching
> a smaller and more manageable sample size.
> Has anybody already done this for those large samples that were recently
> discussed? It would be really helpful for those who cannot always
> collect such samples.
> Robert J. Zatorre, Ph.D.
> Montreal Neurological Institute
> 3801 University St.
> Montreal, QC Canada H3A 2B4
> phone: 1-514-398-8903
> fax: 1-514-398-1338
> e-mail: robert.zatorre@xxxxxxxxx
> web site: www.zlab.mcgill.ca
> Malcolm Slaney wrote:
> > This music paper has 380k subjects :-)
> > While Ben Marlin collected another 30k subjects for this
> > music-recommendation study.
> > The underlying data for both papers is available for academic
> > researchers (fully anonymized, both by song and by user). Send me email
> > if you want more information.
> > - Malcolm
> > On Dec 1, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Wright wrote:
> >> Trevor Cox recently published the results of an online experiment
> >> about listeners' ratings of sound files on a six-point scale ("not
> >> horrible", "bad", "really bad", "awful", "really awful", and
> >> "horrible"). To date he has 130,000 subjects (!) and about 1.5
> >> million data points:
> >> http://www.sea-acustica.es/WEB_ICA_07/fchrs/papers/ppa-09-003.pdf
> >> Here's the website for his experiment: http://www.sound101.org
> >> Clearly this is related to the "effect of visual stimuli on the
> >> horribleness of awful sounds" that Kelly Fitz pointed out.
> >> -Matt
> >> On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:32 AM, Massimo Grassi wrote:
> >>> So far it looks that the experiment with the largest N (513!) is "The
> >>> role of contrasting temporal amplitude patterns in the perception of
> >>> speech" Healy and Warren JASA but I didn't check yet the methodology
> >>> to see whether is a between or a within subject design.