Recognition accuracy is higher for familiar than novel stimuli across all mapping groups, with the familiar-novel difference consistent across groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 A significant main effect of Stimulus Type on accuracy with a large printed effect size (partial eta-squared 0.703). → Kucinkas 2025 q3 i? The Group × Stimulus Type interaction on accuracy was not significant (F(2,57) = 0.883, p = 0.419, η²ₚ = 0.030), indicating the familiar-novel difference was consistent across groups. → Kucinkas 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Kucinkas 2025¶

Kucinkas, A., Retsa, C., Meijer, P. B. L., Wallace, M. T., Gori, M. & Murray, M. M. (2025). Learning visual to auditory sensory substitution reveals flexibility in image to sound mapping. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00385-4

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Evaluation-phase mixed ANOVA with 60 sighted adults; "Participants achieved higher accuracy for familiar stimuli (M = 60.29%, SD = 19.31)" than novel stimuli, F(1,57) = 135.03, with printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.703 (partial eta-squared = 0.703), a large effect.

"Participants achieved higher accuracy for familiar stimuli (M = 60.29%, SD = 19.31) than for novel stimuli (M = 29.83%, SD = 25.78)."

Kucinkas 2025 (2)¶

Kucinkas, A., Retsa, C., Meijer, P. B. L., Wallace, M. T., Gori, M. & Murray, M. M. (2025). Learning visual to auditory sensory substitution reveals flexibility in image to sound mapping. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00385-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Interaction term from the same evaluation-phase ANOVA; "the accuracy difference between familiar and novel stimuli was consistent across groups", with F(2,57) = 0.883 reported; the printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.030 is negligible, so impact is 0-level and coded null here as the subclaim reports only non-significance.

"The interaction between group and stimulus type was not significant (F(2,57) = 0.883, p = 0.419, η²ₚ = 0.030), indicating that the accuracy difference between familiar and novel stimuli was consistent across groups."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Processing time increases more for novel than familiar stimuli in algorithm-trained groups than in the Control group, while overall processing time does not differ by group — related
• Both the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups significantly outperform a single-tone Control group in soundscape recognition accuracy, without differing from each other — related
• Novel stimuli are recognized above chance only by the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups, not by the Control group — related
• Across all mapping groups, pitch-based mapping and mental imagery emerge as the dominant cognitive strategies for interpreting sound-image associations — related
• Structured algorithmic mappings (Traditional and Reversed) produce higher first-attempt learning accuracy than an arbitrary single-tone mapping in visual-to-auditory SSD learning — related
• Introducing a novel audio-visual pairing in Block 2 produced a reliable accuracy decrease only among reading-matched controls — reports the opposite