Both the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups significantly outperform a single-tone Control group in soundscape recognition accuracy, without differing from each other¶

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 Group on evaluation accuracy with a large printed effect size (partial eta-squared 0.495), with both algorithm groups outperforming Control. → Kucinkas 2025 q3 i? Traditional vs Control accuracy difference was M₍diff₎ = 33.63% (p < 0.001) and Reversed vs Control was M₍diff₎ = 24.79% (p < 0.001); Traditional vs Reversed was not significant (p = 0.189, M₍diff₎ = 8.84%). → 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

3×2 mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA in the evaluation phase (randomized assignment, 60 sighted adults); "Participants in both the Traditional and Reversed groups outperformed those in the Control group", with printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.495 (partial eta-squared = 0.495), a large effect.

"A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Group on accuracy (F(2, 57) = 27.95, p < 0.001, η²ₚ = 0.495). Participants in both the Traditional and Reversed groups outperformed those in the Control group."

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

Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc unpaired t-tests from the same evaluation-phase ANOVA; the Traditional group showed "significantly higher accuracy than the Control group" (M₍diff₎= 33.63%) and Reversed vs Control M₍diff₎= 24.79%; no effect sizes printed, so impact is null.

"Post-hoc comparisons (2-sided unpaired t-tests) using Bonferroni correction indicated that the Traditional group showed significantly higher accuracy than the Control group (p < 0.001, M₍diff₎= 33.63%), as did the Reversed group compared to the Control group (p < 0.001, M₍diff₎= 24.79%)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Sensory Integration — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Recognition accuracy is higher for familiar than novel stimuli across all mapping groups, with the familiar-novel difference consistent across groups — related
• Novel stimuli are recognized above chance only by the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups, not by the Control group — 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• 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
• Sidak post hoc tests showed blended learning and e-learning each significantly outperformed traditional teaching, but did not differ significantly from each other — related