Notice Of Sensory Science Journal Publication

hearingimpared

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Niether has anyone that's patting him on the back.

. . . and your point is? Ray has put forth the basics in his initial post.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to prove. That in sighted comparisons people detect differences, and in blind tests they don't? That's not news is it? No training needed either. Hopefully we get to read the whole thing soon.

You are confused because you don't want to accept the fact that someone has come up with a better method of aurally determining the difference in gear rather than see that this method debunks and proves your beloved ABX testing is flawed and biased towards failure of aural evaluation.

It also proves that these difference are at the atomic level and he has come up with a method of hearing and feeling a musical soundstage and noting the differences rather than being rushed into decision in ABX testing by having to listen to snippets of music in short periods of time in a not so aural friendly environment which is inherently flawed and biased to have a 50% failure rate.

BlueFox

All this is over my head. Will this paper explain why my MIT Shotgun S1.3 balanced ICs sound better, actually much better, than the Kimber Kable Heros they replaced?

hearingimpared

bluefox wrote: »

all this is over my head. Will this paper explain why my mit shotgun s1.3 balanced ics sound better, actually much better, than the kimber kable heros they replaced?

lol!

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

All this is over my head. Will this paper explain why my MIT Shotgun S1.3 balanced ICs sound better, actually much better, than the Kimber Kable Heros they replaced?

Probably not, but the MIT white paper should

H9

unc2701

1)cnh, I'm about 95% certain that you're thinking of The Lancet, not NEJM.

2)The Prophecy? Christopher Walken? Bah. You people need to get out more.

3)Point of clarification- "garbage" was referring to my two articles, not the journal they were published in. The journals were fine, hell, one was the top ranked in its topic area. The problem is that they lacked sufficient resources to thoroughly review all aspects of the article and published something that in retrospect was a pretty bad article. Top experts in the field of food science probably aren't going to challenge a statement about statistical efficiency or mathematical convergence, despite them being wild exaggerations. Anyhow, it's not like it keeps me up at night and of all the stupid things I was doing at age 19, writing bad journal articles was the least likely to give me chlamydia.

4)Impact factors aren't everything, and really I've never thought about them when deciding where a publication should go. But when someone starts talking about world's leading journal and giants in their field, I gotta wonder why this incredible journal (published in English) is ranked 54 out of 118 in its topic area. Did the 53 journals ahead of it all game the system? This has nothing to do with a specific article, but again shows a propensity for wild exaggeration.

5)"Why the ABX protocol, despite its high beta error and low statistical power"... Again, every time you talk about statistics, it's clear that you don't understand the topic. Power=1-Beta, so the above statement is completely redundant. Furthermore, a a general methodology has no predefined power. The ABX follows a binomial, with a null of .5; the power would require the n and alternative. In order to make a relative statement like "High power" or "Low power" about a protocol you would have to propose an alternate protocol, show its distribution, and show that it has better or worse power with the same alternative. Since you had a single subject, you have no variance, therefor any statement about power or statistic efficiency that you make in your publication is make-believe or a gross misuse of the term.

But more important is the scientific method in general. The problem that we are trying to address is:
The ABX test works for a lotta things. It doesn't seem to work for audio. Why not?

Possible causes:
a)All ABX tests done had poor methodology (see DK's favorite straw man)
b)The ABX tests have an insufficient learning period and a poor environment, a better training protocol would solve this (see DK's protocol)
c)People don't like being tricked or forced to pick. With audio.
d)We're all smoking crack and there is no difference.

So the proper approach would go:
a)Run an ABX that has one listener, in the sweet spot, keeps them blinded without compromising the audio, is powered to find a difference under a reasonable set of assumptions and addresses all the other usual issues cited with the ABX
b)Repeat with DK's protocol, but ending with an A or B evaluation.
c)Repeat without forcing subjects to pick- they describe the soundstage per DK's protocol and a blinded reviewer (or several- gotta control for the reviewer factor) groups the soundstage mappings into what they believe are identical. Compare to that to the actual A or B.

The above is far from complete, but it would address the issue a lot better than what I'm gathering from this abstract, which in two sentences goes:
"I propose a new audio evaluation method. One person told me what I wanted to hear."

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

1)cnh, I'm about 95% certain that you're thinking of The Lancet, not NEJM.

2)The Prophecy? Christopher Walken? Bah. You people need to get out more.

3)Point of clarification- "garbage" was referring to my two articles, not the journal they were published in. The journals were fine, hell, one was the top ranked in its topic area. The problem is that they lacked sufficient resources to thoroughly review all aspects of the article and published something that in retrospect was a pretty bad article. Top experts in the field of food science probably aren't going to challenge a statement about statistical efficiency or mathematical convergence, despite them being wild exaggerations. Anyhow, it's not like it keeps me up at night and of all the stupid things I was doing at age 19, writing bad journal articles was the least likely to give me chlamydia.

4)Impact factors aren't everything, and really I've never thought about them when deciding where a publication should go. But when someone starts talking about world leading journal and giants in their field, I gotta wonder why this incredible journal (published in English) is ranked 54 out of 118 in its topic area. Did the 53 journals ahead of it all game the system? This has nothing to do with a specific article, but again shows a propensity for wild exaggeration.

5)"Why the ABX protocol, despite its high beta error and low statistical power"... Again, every time you talk about statistics, it's clear that you don't understand the topic. Power=1-Beta, so the above statement is completely redundant. Furthermore, a a general methodology has no predefined power. The ABX follows a binomial, with a null of .5; the power would require the n and alternative. In order to make a statement like "High power" or "Low power" you would have to propose an alternate protocol, show its distribution, and show that it has better or worse power with the same alternative. Since you had a single subject, you have no variance, therefor any statement about power or statistic efficiency that you make in your publication is make-believe or a gross misuse of the term.

But more important is the scientific method in general. The problem that we are trying to address is:
The ABX test works for a lotta things. It doesn't seem to work for audio. Why not?

Possible causes:
a)All ABX tests done had poor methodology (see DK's favorite straw man)
b)The ABX tests have an insufficient learning period and a poor environment, a better training protocol would solve this (see DK's protocol)
c)People don't like being tricked or forced to pick. With audio.
d)We're all smoking crack and there is no difference.

So the proper approach would go:
a)Run an ABX that has one listener, in the sweet spot, keeps them blinded without compromising the audio, is powered to find a difference under a reasonable set of assumptions and addresses all the other usual issues cited with the ABX
b)Repeat with DK's protocol, but ending with an A or B evaluation.
c)Repeat without forcing subjects to pick- they describe the soundstage per DK's protocol and a blinded reviewer (or several- gotta control for the reviewer factor) groups the soundstage mappings into what they believe are identical. Compare to that to the actual A or B.

The above is far from complete, but it would address the issue a lot better than what I'm gathering from this abstract, which in two sentences goes:
"I propose a new audio evaluation method. One person told me what I wanted to hear."

All of this WITHOUT reading the paper or trying the method.

Such good unbiased thought process.

It might behoove you to read the paper when it is availible and try the method out.

If you are going to ask me if I have I'll answer your question before asked; I'm not at liberty to say one way or the other.

unc2701

hearingimpared wrote: »

All of this WITHOUT reading the paper or trying the method.

Such good unbiased thought process.

It might behoove you to read the paper when it is availible and try the method out.

If you are going to ask me if I have I'll answer your question before asked; I'm not at liberty to say one way or the other.

I kinda doubt JOSS is that serious about their embargo, but if you want to feel special, we can all pretend that Ken didn't edit that out of your post for you.

Anyhow, he's detailed the method plenty of times here, maybe there's something new, whatever. I don't take issue with the the protocol, it sounds a lot like how I listen to my rig and evaluate new gear. What I can't help but notice is that no matter how awesome the protocol is, the conclusions that can be drawn are highly limited.

Erik Tracy

unc2701 wrote: »

The above is far from complete, but it would address the issue a lot better than what I'm gathering from this abstract, which in two sentences goes:
"I propose a new audio evaluation method. One person told me what I wanted to hear."

I don't think you understood the abstract at all and that immediately set your bias against the proposed paper.

I read the methodology as to show test subjects 'how to hear' not what to hear.

Big difference in my book.

unc2701

Erik Tracy wrote: »

I don't think you understood the abstract at all and that immediately set your bias against the proposed paper.

I read the methodology as to show test subjects 'how to hear' not what to hear.

Big difference in my book.

Poor choice of phrase on my part. "One subject responded in a way which matched the reaction I desired to achieve" is what I was going for, just not as succinct.

It's a compound remark on small sample size, investigator bias, and lack of a clearly delineated, a priori, testable hypothesis.

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

I kinda doubt JOSS is that serious about their embargo, but if you want to feel special, we can all pretend that Ken didn't edit that out of your post for you.

Was that really necessary? Did it make you feel superior to me . . . big intelligent man? I know you are incapable of making mistakes and are just beyond reproach!!!:rolleyes: I believe I've always treated you relatively civily and with a certain level of respect.

In lieu of banned language, I would just like to say, "expletive! expletive!":D;)

Erik Tracy

As they say, the proof is in the puddin'.

I would hope that once the paper is out, and testers embrace the new methodology the data will start to flow in and then its time to crunch the numbers.

I'll be honest and will admit to a grin of satisfaction when...gasp...:eek:...it can be shown with data (and internet links too!) that test subjects can indeed hear differences in components!

For now, I'm going to wait for the UPS man to show up today with my own set of MIT cables for my own testing and let my own ears decide!:p

unc2701

Erik Tracy wrote: »

As they say, the proof is in the puddin'.

I would hope that once the paper is out, and testers embrace the new methodology the data will start to flow in and then its time to crunch the numbers.

I'll be honest and will admit to a grin of satisfaction when...gasp...:eek:...it can be shown with data (and internet links too!) that test subjects can indeed hear differences in components!

For now, I'm going to wait for the UPS man to show up today with my own set of MIT cables for my own testing and let my own ears decide!:p

+1 on all counts. 'cept for the MIT's. I think I'm going to Kimbers, next. And finally working on my room treatments.

And now I've got work to do, so I'm out.

reeltrouble1

cnh wrote: »

If that were the case then Experimental Physicists and Theoretical Physicists would always 'agree'. You obviously have a 'great faith' in the mathematical representation of REALITY...which really begins with Descartes (as a Grand Philosophical perspective for the West and Modern Science) and has been criticized endlessly in the field of philosophy for a Looooong time. This is not my field. But I do suggest that you peruse, if you haven't, the Philosophy of Science debates over the last half-century or so and see if PHILOSOPHERS agree as to whether math/science is universal and immutable or if it is just as affected by history and theory and culture as everything else that is 'human' is.

Personally I am not a fundamentalist of any kind. Not even a Mathematical Fundamentalist. Enjoy your 'faith'. Reality, whatever that IS, will always remain beyond the perceiving mind's grasp--math or no math.

cnh

Ahh-Ha--so then maybe you are familiar with centers and their rather nervous edges. Familiar with Luther? Actuality vs. Reality "Ich bin nicht mein" please excuse the translation its been a while for me. Melding the sciences seeking the exact with something of an subjective abstract, facinating actually.

I seem to sense the flame licking upon the ever slow turn of the spicket.

The goose is juicing.

RT1

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

4)Impact factors aren't everything, and really I've never thought about them when deciding where a publication should go. But when someone starts talking about world's leading journal and giants in their field, I gotta wonder why this incredible journal (published in English) is ranked 54 out of 118 in its topic area. Did the 53 journals ahead of it all game the system? This has nothing to do with a specific article, but again shows a propensity for wild exaggeration.

There is no wild exaggeration. As I advised before:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Correct understanding, rather than math, is the real key to the universe.

Here is the link to the Journal of Sensory Studies overview page, which states:

"ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking: 2009: Food Science & Technology: 54 / 118
Impact Factor: 1.059"

and

"The Journal of Sensory Studies is the only ISI-ranked, multi-disciplinary journal to focus on observational and experimental studies in the application of sensory science to food, nutrition, personal care, cosmetics, textiles/fabrics, winery, and healthcare across the range of consumer products.

The purpose of the Journal of Sensory Studies is to promote technical and practical advancements in sensory science, a multidisciplinary area that includes food science and technology, psychology/psychophysics, statistics, biology of basic taste, consumer science, material science (textiles/fabrics), marketing research, and other allied areas.

The journal accepts original research and review articles, as well as expository and tutorial papers. Articles often focus on observational and experimental studies in the application of sensory science to the food and beverage, medical, agricultural, biological, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and material sciences industries, including:

New Developments in Sensory Methods. Articles relating to the types of methods and studies in sensory and consumer research, taste discrimination, descriptive analysis, difference and similarity testing, time-intensity curves, carry-over effects, trained/expert vs. consumer, questionnaire design, product optimization, acceptance/preference mapping, and computer application.

Consumer and Product Acceptability Studies. Articles looking closely at the studies of consumer focus groups, and regional, gender-based, and age-based preferences of food and other consumer goods.

Applied Psychophysics. Articles relating to rating scales and the psychology of human sensory responses to food and various consumer products and services."

---

unc2701, I mentioned in my ABX power cable test thread that your reading comprehension seemed to be sorely lacking. It appears that you still suffer from this malady. Do you understand the concept of "multidisciplinary"?

---

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) ranks the Journal of Sensory Science as 54/118 in its journal category. However, the ISI puts the Journal of Sensory Science in the category of "Food Science and Technology". ISI DOES NOT have a journal category for SENSORY SCIENCE!!!!

The Journal of Sensory Studies publishes a lot of articles on sensory effects and reactions to food and beverage, but it IS NOT a food science journal. The Journal of Sensory Science's overview page PLAINLY states that it is a MULTIDISCIPLINARY journal that focuses on SENSORY SCIENCE and not FOOD SCIENCE. Would any rational thinking person actually believe that, if the Journal of Sensory Studies were a FOOD SCIENCE and Technology journal, that they would accept a paper on an audio topic? Really?

Therefore, unc2701, to answer your question:

unc2701 wrote: »

I gotta wonder why this incredible journal (published in English) is ranked 54 out of 118 in its topic area. Did the 53 journals ahead of it all game the system?

The Journal of Sensory Science (JOSS) is ranked 54 out of 118 in the area of Food Science and Technology. However, if Reuters ISI had a more appropriate separate category for SENSORY SCIENCE, then JOSS would be ranked #1. Competent academic professionals understand that multidisciplinary journals, such as JOSS, are at a disadvantage when it comes to these sorts of rankings because ranking organizations typically do not provide an appropriate category for multidisciplinary journals.

The ranking of 53/118 is actually a testament to the quality of articles published in JOSS. JOSS, which is not a FOOD SCIENCE journal, actually ranks ahead of 65 other journals whose focus is FOOD SCIENCE. Lets look at the titles of the top ten 2009 ISI ranked Food Science and Technology journals for additional insight:

1. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.
2. Trends in Food Science and Technology.
3. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research.
4. Food Chemistry.
5. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.
6. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
7. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem.
8. Food Hydrocolloids.
9. Journal of Dairy Science.
10. Food Research International.

The other 117 journals in the ISI's Food Science and Technology category have titles similar to the ones above. Now I must ask, does a journal with the title of "Journal of Sensory Studies" belong with the illustrious group above? Let's play crazy for a minute and assume a hypothetical situation where JOSS was ranked #1 in ISI's Food Science and Technology category. The list above would then look like:

1. Journal of Sensory Studies
2. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.
3. Trends in Food Science and Technology.
4. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research.
5. Food Chemistry.
6. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.
7. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
8. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem.
9. Food Hydrocolloids.
10. Journal of Dairy Science.

Does anything about the hypothetical list above strike you as odd? I think that any reasonably intelligent person would have to ask:

"Why is the Journal of Sensory Science lumped in with all those food science journals? What was ISI thinking?"

JOSS's ranking of 54/118 has absolutely NOTHING to do with its quality. Rather, it is a reflection of the inadequacies of a ranking organization.

It is easy to verify that the editorial board of JOSS is composed of giants in the field of SENSORY SCIENCE. Google JOSS co-editor "Edgar Chambers IV". His curriculum vitae is available online and I will actually do you the courtesy of attaching his CV below. Dr. Chambers holds a Ph.D. in Sensory Analysis. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior and the Director of the Sensory Analysis Center at Kansas State University. When I look at Dr. Chamber's 25 page curriculum vitae and view his accomplishments and publications, it appears to me that he is a giant in the field of sensory science. Dr. Chambers has done a lot of research in food science, therefore he can claim "giant" status in that field also. Take a look for yourself and see what you think. Google any of the other JOSS editorial board members whose names are on the JOSS website and you will find more giants.

The overwhelming majority of the foundational papers in the field of SENSORY SCIENCE have been published in JOSS. Before you make sweeping, unfounded aspersions, do your research and get a clue. Any competent researcher knows that numbers, rankings and quantitative data do not always provide the whole story. I would expect more understanding from someone who represents himself as an academic researcher.

I appreciate your bringing up JOSS's ISI citation and impact factor rankings. As I am sure this will come up in the future from similarly uninformed and misinformed individuals, I can just refer to my journal impact factor and journal ISI citation ranking tutorials.

To reiterate:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Correct understanding, rather than math, is the real key to the universe.

I hope that all this grasping at the wind is keeping you cool this summer.

madmax

Its cool to have our own honest to goodness scientist and scholar on board right here on club polk!

Polkitup2

Exactly, and I look forward to reading the paper. I also wonder if it would be useful to have a standardized test CD so that soundstage mapping results could be discussed and compared using the same music.

reeltrouble1

madmax wrote: »

Its cool to have our own honest to goodness scientist and scholar on board right here on club polk!

AND he can take a mean photograph!!!!!!!

Ever since the Compendium, well, I have been a fanboy, Go DK Go!!!!

RT1

madmax

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Ever since the Compendium

I have an autographed coffee table edition! :p:p

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0887-8250

hearingimpared wrote: »

Since when does math have anything to do with hearing and feeling and associated emotion? What has it to do with listening to music through different gear and hearing a difference in the musical presentation?

Absolutely nothing. I would also ask, what does math have to do with REASONING? Math can only provide data. The CORRECT INTERPRETATION of that data depends on the individual's mental training and reasoning ability.

This example perfectly illustrates the folly of the objectivist's mindset that everything can be reduced to, and explained by, numbers and measurements. An objectivist, who represents himself as an experienced academic researcher, implied that a scientific journal had questionable quality due to its low impact factor and low ISI Citation ranking. However, when we looked more closely, we found that this particular journal was not even grouped with peer journals because the ranking organization did not provide an appropriate category for this type of MULTIDISCIPLINARY journal. Even with that disadvantage, the maligned journal still ranked ahead of 64 other journals in the field in which it was misplaced!

We also found that a journal's low impact factor is not necessarily an indication of poor quality. Some may have been surprised to learn that the world's most important physics journal (Annalen der Physik, 2009 impact factor 1.16), the journal where most of the foundational papers in modern physics have been published, has an impact factor numerically similar to the world's most important sensory science journal (Journal of Sensory Studies, 2009 impact factor 1.059). Similar to Annalen der Physik, the Journal of Sensory Studies is the repository of most of the foundational papers in its field.

Impact factors and ISI citation rankings were never intended to be measures of a scientific journal's integrity and quality. They are merely measures of how often a journal's articles are cited by other authors. Again, low citation is not necessarily an indication of low quality. Some reasons for which a high quality journal paper may not be frequently cited are:

1. The paper offers correct, but contradictory, results which embarrass those who built their reputations on erroneous and widely held theory.

2. The paper offers groundbreaking results which are difficult to understand.

3. The paper is not authored by a well known person.

Another example which perfectly and vividly exemplifies the folly of the objectivist's mindset is the 1987 ABX power amplifier test I discussed in post #25 of this thread. After 772 trials were performed during this test, the results were as follows:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

...the panelists identified the correct amplifier in 388 trials, which was a success rate of 50.3% and which was statistically similar to guessing.

This test indicated that there was no audible difference between any of the amplifiers. To reiterate, there was no perceived audible difference between a $200 transistor receiver and a $12,000 tube amplifier!

The author concluded:

"But for now, the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are still differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them."

These test results indicate a lot about the REASONING ability of the test facilitator and of the REASONING ability of the magazine editor who allowed this to be published without further investigation. I looked at these results and reasoned that there must be something wrong with a test that PREVENTS subjects from hearing an audible difference between a cheap receiver and high end monoblock power amplifiers constructed of premium parts. If the test facilitator, subjects and magazine editor had investigated further, they would have found that:

1. They were using a test methodology that typically provides results statistically similar to guessing.

2. They were using a test methodology that diminishes, rather than enhances, the amount of sensory data that a subject receives. In other words, using the ABX protocol for sound stimuli is analogous to taking two vivid color photographs, then rendering the photographs in black and white, then asking subjects to identify color differences between the two.

However, the test facilitator, and others, were so narrowly focused on "the numbers" that they failed to seek true understanding. They just took the results at face value. They did not seem to want to do any deeper thinking.

It seems to me that mental laziness lies at the core of the objectivist mindset. If everything could be reduced to numbers, no one would ever have to do any comparative listening...or thinking. Just look at the numbers and you know how a piece of gear sounds. Better yet, let's use a test that reduces aural and tactile information to the point where everything, from the cheapest and lowest quality to the most expensive and highest quality, sounds alike.

madmax

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It seems to me that mental laziness lies at the core of the objectivist mindset. If everything could be reduced to numbers, no one would ever have to do any comparative listening...or thinking. Just look at the numbers and you know how a piece of gear sounds.

Early on I was mentally lazy as a listener, did not know how to concentrate on a particular area of sound and had no idea what to listen for. This made me search for a way to KNOW what was best without having to decide for myself. I was incapable of deciding for myself. Since I could not KNOW I started comparing sounds, essentially A-B tests. OK, I thought, now I KNOW which of two samples I think sound best. I would pick one or the other based on one or two variables. As I've progressed I now realize you can't focus on two or three variables out of thousands, which is what comparison listening forces you to do. You also cannot map thousands of variables at a single time in your mind. The only way to address the sounds of different equipment is to seperate the different qualities and map them. The mentally lazy will NOT do this. Neither will the person who needs an absolute answer on which is best. His mind will not allow it to remain a question so he will make an unqualified decision through any easy unqualified method such as A-B comparison or ABX etc. Who knows, maybe the decision will be made on how close to the speakers the dog wants to be. Whatever the process, the easier the better, a decision must be made by these types. In reality we must break out all of the qualities, understand them, listen to them and pick out what seems best. This journal entry does exactly that. It is not for the mentally lazy or someone in the mindset of having already made a decision. Strangely enough, what sounds best in a comparison is usually not what will make us happy in the long term. We tend to pick things based on whatever is most different between the two items being compared. This leaves us with nothing.
madmax

Jetmaker737

Maybe not only laziness. But also a mistaken idea that science can identify, isolate, and measure all the variables involved. When you are dealing with a complex psychological/biological human being's interaction with his/her environment, a reductionist approach is not suitable.

bikezappa

UNC2701 I wish you luck trying to have a logical discussion on this site. Name calling will start along with the one liners. There are just to many of them. I gave up trying to discuss science with Dr Darquekinght when he stated that alternating current goes in one direction when he was discussing how 120 volt line cables affect noise.

If DK has a method that can detect different sounds than shouldn't we be able to use this method to demonstrate ABX testing?

Enjoy the music, that's what it's all about.

unc2701

DarqueKnight wrote: »

There is no wild exaggeration. As I advised before:



Here is the link to the Journal of Sensory Studies overview page, which states:

"ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking: 2009: Food Science & Technology: 54 / 118
Impact Factor: 1.059"

and

"The Journal of Sensory Studies is the only ISI-ranked, multi-disciplinary journal to focus on observational and experimental studies in the application of sensory science to food, nutrition, personal care, cosmetics, textiles/fabrics, winery, and healthcare across the range of consumer products.

The purpose of the Journal of Sensory Studies is to promote technical and practical advancements in sensory science, a multidisciplinary area that includes food science and technology, psychology/psychophysics, statistics, biology of basic taste, consumer science, material science (textiles/fabrics), marketing research, and other allied areas.

The journal accepts original research and review articles, as well as expository and tutorial papers. Articles often focus on observational and experimental studies in the application of sensory science to the food and beverage, medical, agricultural, biological, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and material sciences industries, including:

New Developments in Sensory Methods. Articles relating to the types of methods and studies in sensory and consumer research, taste discrimination, descriptive analysis, difference and similarity testing, time-intensity curves, carry-over effects, trained/expert vs. consumer, questionnaire design, product optimization, acceptance/preference mapping, and computer application.

Consumer and Product Acceptability Studies. Articles looking closely at the studies of consumer focus groups, and regional, gender-based, and age-based preferences of food and other consumer goods.

Applied Psychophysics. Articles relating to rating scales and the psychology of human sensory responses to food and various consumer products and services."

---

unc2701, I mentioned in my ABX power cable test thread that your reading comprehension seemed to be sorely lacking. It appears that you still suffer from this malady. Do you understand the concept of "multidisciplinary"?

---

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) ranks the Journal of Sensory Science as 54/118 in its journal category. However, the ISI puts the Journal of Sensory Science in the category of "Food Science and Technology". ISI DOES NOT have a journal category for SENSORY SCIENCE!!!!

The Journal of Sensory Studies publishes a lot of articles on sensory effects and reactions to food and beverage, but it IS NOT a food science journal. The Journal of Sensory Science's overview page PLAINLY states that it is a MULTIDISCIPLINARY journal that focuses on SENSORY SCIENCE and not FOOD SCIENCE. Would any rational thinking person actually believe that, if the Journal of Sensory Studies were a FOOD SCIENCE and Technology journal, that they would accept a paper on an audio topic? Really?

Therefore, unc2701, to answer your question:



The Journal of Sensory Science (JOSS) is ranked 54 out of 118 in the area of Food Science and Technology. However, if Reuters ISI had a more appropriate separate category for SENSORY SCIENCE, then JOSS would be ranked #1. Competent academic professionals understand that multidisciplinary journals, such as JOSS, are at a disadvantage when it comes to these sorts of rankings because ranking organizations typically do not provide an appropriate category for multidisciplinary journals.

The ranking of 53/118 is actually a testament to the quality of articles published in JOSS. JOSS, which is not a FOOD SCIENCE journal, actually ranks ahead of 65 other journals whose focus is FOOD SCIENCE. Lets look at the titles of the top ten 2009 ISI ranked Food Science and Technology journals for additional insight:

1. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.
2. Trends in Food Science and Technology.
3. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research.
4. Food Chemistry.
5. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.
6. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
7. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem.
8. Food Hydrocolloids.
9. Journal of Dairy Science.
10. Food Research International.

The other 117 journals in the ISI's Food Science and Technology category have titles similar to the ones above. Now I must ask, does a journal with the title of "Journal of Sensory Studies" belong with the illustrious group above? Let's play crazy for a minute and assume a hypothetical situation where JOSS was ranked #1 in ISI's Food Science and Technology category. The list above would then look like:

1. Journal of Sensory Studies
2. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.
3. Trends in Food Science and Technology.
4. Molecular Nutrition and Food Research.
5. Food Chemistry.
6. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.
7. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
8. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem.
9. Food Hydrocolloids.
10. Journal of Dairy Science.

Does anything about the hypothetical list above strike you as odd? I think that any reasonably intelligent person would have to ask:

"Why is the Journal of Sensory Science lumped in with all those food science journals? What was ISI thinking?"

JOSS's ranking of 54/118 has absolutely NOTHING to do with its quality. Rather, it is a reflection of the inadequacies of a ranking organization.

It is easy to verify that the editorial board of JOSS is composed of giants in the field of SENSORY SCIENCE. Google JOSS co-editor "Edgar Chambers IV". His curriculum vitae is available online and I will actually do you the courtesy of attaching his CV below. Dr. Chambers holds a Ph.D. in Sensory Analysis. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior and the Director of the Sensory Analysis Center at Kansas State University. When I look at Dr. Chamber's 25 page curriculum vitae and view his accomplishments and publications, it appears to me that he is a giant in the field of sensory science. Dr. Chambers has done a lot of research in food science, therefore he can claim "giant" status in that field also. Take a look for yourself and see what you think. Google any of the other JOSS editorial board members whose names are on the JOSS website and you will find more giants.

The overwhelming majority of the foundational papers in the field of SENSORY SCIENCE have been published in JOSS. Before you make sweeping, unfounded aspersions, do your research and get a clue. Any competent researcher knows that numbers, rankings and quantitative data do not always provide the whole story. I would expect more understanding from someone who represents himself as an academic researcher.

I appreciate your bringing up JOSS's ISI citation and impact factor rankings. As I am sure this will come up in the future from similarly uninformed and misinformed individuals, I can just refer to my journal impact factor and journal ISI citation ranking tutorials.

To reiterate:



I hope that all this grasping at the wind is keeping you cool this summer.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. I would also ask, what does math have to do with REASONING? Math can only provide data. The CORRECT INTERPRETATION of that data depends on the individual's mental training and reasoning ability.

This example perfectly illustrates the folly of the objectivist's mindset that everything can be reduced to, and explained by, numbers and measurements. An objectivist, who represents himself as an experienced academic researcher, implied that a scientific journal had questionable quality due to its low impact factor and low ISI Citation ranking. However, when we looked more closely,

...I had to cut out a chunk 'cause the post was too long...


They did not seem to want to do any deeper thinking.

It seems to me that mental laziness lies at the core of the objectivist mindset. If everything could be reduced to numbers, no one would ever have to do any comparative listening...or thinking. Just look at the numbers and you know how a piece of gear sounds. Better yet, let's use a test that reduces aural and tactile information to the point where everything, from the cheapest and lowest quality to the most expensive and highest quality, sounds alike.

Dear.

God.

I don't even want to know how long you spent writing all that. Wow. Hokay, I've gotta bill people for my time but I'll take 15 minutes out here to hit the highlights on this... 1:55? Back in 15.

unc2701

One of the criticisms of impact factor is that obscure fields can have inflated impact simply because there are a limited number of sources to cite, so the same ones are used heavily. So JOSS being grouped in a saturated category like Food Science would more likely be to its advantage since the food citations are spread over a larger number of journals.

Regarding your hypothetical list, I wasn’t aware that ISI used the titles of the journals for grouping them… seems like they’d use something more reliable, such as the actual content, no? Speaking of content, let’s check out the last few issues of JOSS shall we? I’m just gonna throw the articles into some broad categories. Food, beverage, taste, and methodology to evaluate ‘em, I’m just going to call “Food”; anything else I’ll note.

Haddock BALLS??? Wow. I’ll put this under food, I guess.
Moving on:
Food, Food, Food, Food, Food…
AUDITORY CUES … RESPONSES TO.. FOOD AND DRINK. Technically, food, but we’ll call it “Audio” just for you.
Food, Food, Food.

Next issue:
Food, Food, Textiles, Food, Food, Food, Food, Food, Food.

Next Issue:
Food, BEER!, Food, Food, Food, Food,Statistics, Food

Next Issue:
Food, Food, Food,Fragrance, Food, Food

Not much time here, so that’ll do. That’s 29 food articles, and 3 about something else. But maybe it’s not the food articles that are really outstanding for them. Maybe their high profile articles have a different profile? Let’s check their top five… Food, Statistics, Food, Food, Food.

Hm.

Well, I suppose that if you want to make a hypothetical list of Sensory Studies Journals and put JOSS at the top, it’s your right to do so.

I’m making a hypothetical list of Dudes in Central North Carolina that Miranda Kerr should totally bang:
1)Me.

But this impact factor thing really is just a sidebar. Whatever. It’s the greatest journal in the history of publishing.

I’ve seen you make some claims that aren’t remote held up by the facts, such as saying that ABX tests were entirely absent from the Sensory Science literature based on the table of contents from the first two references you looked at (Sadly, no. They were in both references) and that blinding wasn’t an accepted practice-the FIRST page of one of your references gave blinding as one of the things that distinguishes Sensory Studies from market research.

Talk about laziness, you were posting claims before you’d even bothered to read the references.

As for the 388 trials thing, that’s circular logic or begging the question depending on how you look at it. You assume that which is to be proven.

…and my time is up. Crap. one minute over.

unc2701

unc2701 wrote: »

one minute over.

I blame Miranda Kerr.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

I gave up trying to discuss science with Dr Darquekinght when he stated that alternating current goes in one direction when he was discussing how 120 volt line cables affect noise.

Peter (bikezappa) informed us that he has a degree in physics from Lowell Technological Institute (now University of Massachusetts-Lowell). I was startled that he did not, and still does not, understand the basics of alternating current.

The discussion he is referring to is here:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Any competent physicist knows that AC does not actually reverse "direction". When you plug a television into an AC socket does the energy flow back and forth between the TV and the wall? Of course not. How would any electricity get to the TV if it was constantly jumping back and forth, or "reversing direction" between the wall and the TV? The voltage, or the force that pushes the current, swings between a maximum and a minimum value, but the net flow of energy (electrical current) is forward from the wall to the TV.

For the non technical reader, imagine this: A surfer (who represents electric current) is riding sinusoidally shaped ocean waves (voltage). At a distance not affected by the waves, an observer on a ship matching the surfer's speed sees the surfer riding over the peaks and valleys of the waves, but the surfer's net motion is in a forward direction.

Now imagine a helicopter above the surfer and matching his speed. An observer watching from the helicopter sees what? The surfer appears to move toward the helicopter as he approaches the top of a wave, then the surfer reverses direction and moves away from the helicopter as he slides down toward the valley part of the wave. From the helicopter observer's point of view the surfer is constantly moving toward and then away from the helicopter, yet the surfer's net motion is in a forward motion.

Again, when you plug in an AC appliance into an AC wall receptacle, the electric current, which is a SINUSOIDAL waveform, DOES NOT flow in one direction toward the appliance and then reverse direction and then flow back toward the wall receptacle. The POLARITY of the waveform reverses direction (rises and falls) between a positive and a negative maximum value. The net flow of current (net flow of energy) IS IN ONE DIRECTION. One more time: In alternating current, it is the POLARITY of the waveform that changes direction and not the flow of direction of the current. This contrasts with direct current in which the waveform is non-sinusoidal and maintains a constant value as it flows forward in time.

After my generous AC tutorial, Mr. Bikezappa replied with this:

bikezappa wrote: »

Unfortunatly all definitions of AC Alternating Current disagree with DK.

http://www.answers.com/topic/alternating-current

I checked the definition at a few other places and they all stated the same thing. The Current and the Voltage changes directions.

If you click on the link in Mr. Bikezappa's post above, it shows a time domain plot of an alternating current waveform. The waveform plot clearly shows a forward, unidirectional orientation with time. The AC waveform plot from Mr. Bikezappa's link is shown below.

Time domain plot of alternating current waveform

Now, Mr. Bikezappa, who says he is a physicist, informs us that he gave up trying to discuss "science" with me when I would not accept his erroneous view that alternating current flows back and forth between a wall receptacle and the appliance connected to it. He simply cannot grasp the concept of unidirectional current flow with alternating polarity. These are the types of "scientists" that comprise the ABX audio testing "faithful". These are the types of minds that comprise the anti-audiophile naysayer cult.

These are also the types of minds that would behead you, hang you, burn you alive, or torture you to death if you would not accept the "scientifically correct" view that the world was flat.;)

agfrost

unc2701 wrote: »

One of the criticisms of impact factor is that obscure fields can have inflated impact simply because there are a limited number of sources to cite, so the same ones are....

EDITED FOR BREVITY

Hm.

Well, I suppose that if you want to make a hypothetical list of Sensory Studies Journals and put JOSS at the top, it’s your right to do so.

I’m making a hypothetical list of Dudes in Central North Carolina that Miranda Kerr should totally bang:
1)Me.

But this impact factor thing really is just a sidebar. Whatever. It’s the greatest journal in the history of publishing.

I’ve seen you make some claims that aren’t remote held up by the facts, such as saying that ABX tests were entirely absent from the Sensory Science literature based on the table of contents from the first two references you looked at (Sadly, no. They were in both references) and that blinding wasn’t an accepted practice-the FIRST page of one of your references gave blinding as one of the things that distinguishes Sensory Studies from market research.

Talk about laziness, you were posting claims before you’d even bothered to read the references.

As for the 388 trials thing, that’s circular logic or begging the question depending on how you look at it. You assume that which is to be proven.

…and my time is up. Crap. one minute over.

Are you arguing just to argue, or is there some underlying point to all of your complaints in this thread?

Jetmaker737

It is a fundamentally basic concept that current reverses direction in an AC circuit commensurate with the alternating voltage. Reversing the voltage, or potential necessitates that the current change direction. And that fact has no bearing on that ability of AC devices to extract energy. To state that energy flows in "one direction" misstates the physics. Electrons do not ride AC waves like a surfer!!

Also, the plot you show does not show uni-directionality over time. It quite obviously alternates between positive and negative values over time.

DarqueKnight

hearingimpared wrote: »

You mean the current doesn't flow foward . . . what a revelation!

Apparently not.:(

reeltrouble1

Oh my. We seem to be quite at odds over such a simple thing.

How did we get from the words of a test evidencing auditory awareness to so much haberdashery, quite snarky, so then if you cannot discredit one thing spin another thing.

Still it is a hell of lot better than adcom vs emotiva, carry on, I sem though to sense the anti hi-fi insurgency is a bit stretched in the recent posts. Never mind the current, the test, what of the test.

RT1