Structured algorithmic mappings (Traditional and Reversed) produce higher first-attempt learning accuracy than an arbitrary single-tone mapping in visual-to-auditory SSD learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Mapping condition significantly influenced first-attempt learning accuracy, with a large printed effect size (partial eta-squared 0.310). → Kucinkas 2025 q3 i? First-attempt accuracy was approximately 90.00% (Traditional), 84.17% (Reversed), and 72.08% (Control). → 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

One-way between-subjects ANOVA on Attempt 1 accuracy in a randomized experiment with 60 sighted adults in Traditional, Reversed, or Control mapping groups; mapping condition significantly influenced performance on the first attempt, with printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.310 (partial eta-squared = 0.310), a large effect.

"The analysis showed a significant main effect of Condition (F(2, 57) = 12.81, p < 0.001, η²ₚ = 0.310; ω² = .282), indicating that mapping condition significantly influenced performance on the first attempt."

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

Descriptive group means (mean ± SEM) from the same learning-phase analysis; the Traditional group reached "90.00 ± 1.85%" accuracy, the Reversed group 84.17 ± 2.65%, and the Control group 72.08 ± 3.02%.

"The Traditional group achieved 90.00 ± 1.85%, the Reversed group 84.17 ± 2.65%, and the Control group 72.08 ± 3.02% accuracy."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Sensory Integration — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Both the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups significantly outperform a single-tone Control group in soundscape recognition accuracy, without differing from each other — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Novel stimuli are recognized above chance only by the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups, not by the Control group — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Recognition accuracy is higher for familiar than novel stimuli across all mapping groups, with the familiar-novel difference consistent across groups — related
• 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
• Algorithm-group participants report significantly higher soundscape visualizability than Control participants, while group differences in strategy use, confidence, and error awareness are not statistically significant — related
• Across all mapping groups, pitch-based mapping and mental imagery emerge as the dominant cognitive strategies for interpreting sound-image associations — related