Re: Online listening tests and psychoacoutics experiments with large N

[Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx> 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