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¶

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 A significant group effect for the ability to draw soundscapes with a large printed effect size (partial eta-squared 0.186), with both algorithm groups higher than Control. → Kucinkas 2025 q3 i? No significant group differences for strategy use, confidence on incorrect or correct answers, or awareness of errors during evaluation (all F(2,57) ≤ 0.96, p ≥ 0.387). → 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 ANOVA on debrief-questionnaire measures from 60 sighted adults; "a significant group effect for the ability to draw soundscapes" with printed effect size η²ₚ = 0.186 (partial eta-squared = 0.186), a large effect per the η² thresholds; post hoc Sidak comparisons showed Traditional (p = .041) and Reversed (p = .003) higher than Control.

"Results indicated a significant group effect for the ability to draw soundscapes (F(2,57) = 6.51, p = 0.003, η²ₚ = 0.186 )."

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

Debrief-questionnaire ANOVAs from the same 60 sighted adults; "No significant differences were found for strategy use", confidence, or error awareness; the printed η²ₚ values are small (0.004–0.033). Non-significant tests in a sample of 60 do not show that the groups are the same on these measures.

"No significant differences were found for strategy use (F(2,57) = 0.48, p = 0.622, η²ₚ = 0.016), confidence on incorrect answers (F(2,57) = 0.96, p = 0.387, η²ₚ = 0.033), confidence on correct answers (F(2,57) = 0.10, p = 0.902, η²ₚ = 0.004), or awareness of errors during evaluation (F(2,57) = 0.88, p = 0.421, η²ₚ = 0.030 )."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Self-Efficacy — outcome: instruction changes it
• Sensory Integration — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Both the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups significantly outperform a single-tone Control group in soundscape recognition accuracy, without differing from each other — 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
• Blackboard-based blended teaching showed no statistically significant effect on self-confidence — related