Reducing audio stimulus presentation latencies across studies, laboratories, and hardware and operating system configurations

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 649-665

  Babjack, Destiny L ^a   Cernicky, Brandon ^a   Sobotka, Andrew J ^a   Basler, Lee ^a   Struthers, Devon ^a   Kisic, Richard ^a   Barone, Kimberly ^a   Zuccolotto, Anthony P ^a  

^a Psychology Software Tools Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Audio; E Prime; Experimental design; Known latency; Latency; Sound; Sound delivery; Sound onset latency; Sound optimization; Sound presentation; Synchronization; Variable latency

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROCEDURES;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84939785109     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0608-x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Crosse, M. J., & Lalor, E. C. (2014). The cortical representation of the speech envelope is earlier for audiovisual speech than audio speech. Journal of Neurophysiology, 111, 1400–1408. doi:10.1152/jn.00690.2013 (Retraction published 2014: Journal of Neurophysiology, 112, 2667. doi:10.1152/jn.z9k-2710-retr.2014)
2. Kieckhefer, E., & Kanwal, J. S. (2000). A computer program for sequencing and presenting complex sounds for auditory neuroimaging studies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 101, 43–48. doi:10.1016/(S)165-0279(00)00249-1
3. Neurobehavioral Systems, Inc. (2015). Presentation system recommendations: sounds cards. Retrieved online on April 29, 2015, from https://www.neurobs.com/menu_presentation/menu_hardware/system_configuration
4. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253
5. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Turner, G. (2004). Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why? Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 291–303. doi:10.3758/s12315-013-0166-8
6. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Whitehouse, T. (2003). How choice of mouse may affect response timing in psychological studies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 276–284. doi:10.3758/BF03202553
7. Plant, R. R., & Quinlan, T. (2013). Could millisecond timing errors in commonly used equipment be a cause of replication failure in some neuroscience studies? Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 598–614. doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0166-6
8. Plant, R. R., & Turner, G. (2009). Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: New hardware, new problems? Behavior Research Methods, 41, 598–614. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.598
9. Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2015). E-Prime knowledge base: 1307 – INFO: Sound latency – Not all sound cards provide optimal millisecond timing. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from www.pstnet.com/support/kb.asp?TopicID=1307
10. Tomarken, A. J., & Serlin, R. C. (1986). Comparison of ANOVA alternatives under variance heterogeneity and heterogeneity and specific noncentrality structures. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 90–99. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.90
11. Voyvodic, J. T., Glover, G. H., Greve, D., Gadde, S., & FBIRN. (2011). Automated real-time behavioral and physiological data acquired display integrated with stimulus presentation for fMRI. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 5, 27. doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00027
12. Welch, B. L. (1951). On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika, 38, 330–336.