Subject: Re: Online listening tests and psychoacoutics experiments with large N From: Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:37:17 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>We've done a couple of web-based experiments through our IRB. We were able to get them exempt on the basis that the listening tests involved no risk to the subjects, that we kept absolutely no personal data (indeed, it was completely anonymous), and that we had a click-through consent form in which they asserted they were at least 18 and we told them who to complain to. We've gotten pretty good response rates (several hundred people giving us their opinion on the similarities between named pop musicians at the defunct musicseer.org, or typing words to describe music clips a la ESP game at http://game.majorminer.com/ ), but as to the repeatability or control of conditions -- well, point taken. DAn. On 7/2/07, Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I see a looming danger, like a tiger hiding in > the shade ready to jump on any US investigator > actually running online listening experiments. > The tiger is called the IRB. I mean, (pray tell) > how the world would the investigator ensure > protection of the unsuspecting web subject who > takes part even in 15 minutes of listening? Those > not living under the tutelage of Institutional > Review Boards may have no idea what it takes to > get approval even for our obviously unthreatening > listening experiments and how serious the > consequences of even the slightest infringements > of their often arbitrary rules could be. I am > sure many of our colleagues have a few personally > experienced horror stories to tell. The large-N > studies for those boards spell simply "NO". > > Pierre