[visionlist] Matlab --> online Experiments
jon.peirce at gmail.com
Sun May 3 06:13:12 -04 2020
On 03/05/2020 08:01, Caspar Goeke wrote:
> Dear Jon and vision community,
> I would like to put a few things into context here and also ask some
> I read the paper you quoted, but our platform
> (https://www.labvanced.com/) was not included in the comparison. So I
> am wondering whether this was a conscious choice or whether we were
> not on your radar yet (of course we would be glad to be included in
> future work)?
Simple lack of resources I'm afraid. There was obviously a huge time
commitment for each package we tested given that we had to learn the
package and then run 1000s of trials on each combination of operating
system and browser. Sadly many options could not be included as a result
(PsyToolkit, tatool, EventIDE, OSweb, Experimaker... are just a few that
we didn't have time to test)
> In any case, I would like to stress the point that our system was
> build around timing accuracy, i.e. we use a pre-rendering approach,
> and precision < 3 ms can surely be realized with us.
I'm sure the authors of all the packages would say the same. I'm sure
all are pre-rendering stimuli, and all are using sub-ms clocks.
Nonetheless, we see found a lot of difference across packages and
browsers, mostly *not* achieving sub-3ms precision, and none matching
the lab-based packages. Audio-visual synchrony was particularly poor
acorss all the packages we tested, although if Labvanced has cracked
that nut it would be great to hear! Ultimately, the challenge is that
the browsers are black boxes that differ in many ways (use of graphics
buffers, keyboard polling rates...) and they aren't designed for things
we need (like millisecond-precise audio onsets). As an example, in the
desktop, PTB and PsychoPy directly poll the USB port for key presses at
polls the browser, which polls the operating system, which polls the USB
port, and each step can add delays and variability.
> Overall, I dont think there is a single best choice for all online
Agreed. If you want to run online studies only (or lab-based studies
only) then there are many options. I was specifically referring to the
case where users wanted to create a study once and run it both in the
lab (with maximal precision) and online.
> Needles to say, besides PsychoPy, there are also good native
This is true too although, again, a word of caution that people/packages
that have given this *a lot* of thought have come up with solutions not
all equal in timing precision. If you neeed very precise timing then
make sure you test the actual precision of your study using a BBTK to
make sure you are getting the precision you expect/need.
> So my honest and unbiased oppinion to anyone in the community is: Try
> out various platforms/frameworks and pick the one best suited for your
> On Sun, May 3, 2020, 00:48 Jon Peirce <jon.peirce at gmail.com
> <mailto:jon.peirce at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm a bit late to this discussion, but just to expand on
> the discussion and give some more info about running studies online.
> We (the PsychoPy team) put in a lot of work over the last 2-3
> years, intially funded by Wellcome Trust and now the Chan
> and allow the Builder interface to generate scripts in either
> syntax. At this point I don't think I'm being biased when I say
> that PsychoPy is your best bet for creating a single study that
> can run both in the lab (maximal precision) and online (maximal
> portability) with minimal translation hassles.
> PsychoPy has excellent timing in both environments
> In the lab is achieves sub-ms keyboard and audio timing (it
> actually uses the same keyboard and audio C code as PTB since
> Mario ported that to Python). It also has best-in-class timing
> online - it's the only package currently able to produce RT timing
> precision under 3.5ms on all browsers (in conjunction with a
> LabHacker Millikey button box).
> For those that are interested I've spelled out below some of the
> issues that needed solving for all this to be possible, and a few
> that still aren't yet solved.
> Hope the info is helpful.
> best wishes all,
> *Porting the /lib /to JS*
> As Dee points out, is that the functions themselves need to have
> been ported to JS as well as just converting the syntax of your
> script. Translating your PTB script to JS syntax is no use because
> the Screen functions haven't been ported to JS. PTB's key selling
> point, that a lot of the critical functions run as compiled C
> code, is probably also the thing that will make it hard to port to JS.
> A substantial portion of the PsychoPy lib has now been ported to
> JS. Not all stimuli are there but many are, and the calls to use
> them are generally the same as in the Python lib.
> https://www.psychopy.org/online/status.html In particular, you can
> time your stimulus presentation by number of frames, and you can
> update stimulus parameters on every frame! Timing can't currently
> be *as good* as lab-based libraries (and don't listen to anybody
> telling you otherwise) but it is much better than most people imagine.
> PsychoJS (the JS port of the lib) uses WebGL where available,
> which allows a large range of hardware-accelerated graphics,
> including GL shaders, to be used so we should ultimately be able
> to create all your favourite stimuli online. :-)
> *Generating the JS experiment /script/*
> PsychoPy Builder can also output your experiment in either format
> - the Python script or the JS files. Python Code Components within
> the Builder experiment can even be auto-translated to JS format!
> Again, you can't use functions that don't exist, but the syntax
> converts remarkably well, so you can augment your study with
> conditionals, loops and even custom functions and these will all
> be translated.
> You can't take a hand-written script and auto-convert that. The
> structural changes required for a full script mean that isn't
> possible (and probably never will be).
> That said, creating a study in Builder is really fast, so starting
> from scratch isn't such a big deal, and Builder is the approach we
> recommend even for skilled programmers anyway. It typically means
> fewer mistakes, better timing and more future-proof experiments
> ("future you" can still undertand the study when it's graphical
> rather than 1000 lines of code).
> *What isn't done
> The downside for vision scientists is that we expected this
> community to be last to want to go online so the psychophysics
> features have been last to be implemented. In particular, gamma
> correction hasn't been done (although it could be using WebGL
> Shaders) and we haven't ported the Gratings and similar stimuli
> yet (mostly because these aren't the useful if gamma isn't
> linearised). We also haven't yet ported over the staircase procedures.
> All these things can be done and we will get to them in due course
> but, also, if you have JS skills you could jump in and help us
> fill the gaps!
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:23 AM Sauter Marian
>> <marian.sauter at unibw.de <mailto:marian.sauter at unibw.de>> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> for those of you still seeking recommendations on how to get
>> your experiments online, our article just got pusblished open
>> Sauter, M.; Draschkow, D.; Mack, W. *Building, Hosting and
>> Recruiting: A Brief Introduction to Running Behavioral
>> Experiments Online*. /Brain Sci./ *2020*, /10/, 251.
>> Best wishes,
>> *Dr. Marian Sauter*
>> /Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/
>> Universität der Bundeswehr München
>> Department für Psychologie - Professur für Allgemeine Psychologie
>> Gb. 161 / Raum 1016
>> Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
>> 85577 Neubiberg
>> marian.sauter at unibw.de <mailto:marian.sauter at unibw.de>
>> *Von:* visionlist <visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com
>> <mailto:visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com>> im Auftrag von
>> Caspar Goeke <caspar.goeke at gmail.com
>> <mailto:caspar.goeke at gmail.com>>
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. April 2020 08:01
>> *An:* visionlist at visionscience.com
>> <mailto:visionlist at visionscience.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [visionlist] Matlab --> online Experiments
>> Hello everyone,
>> After finishing my PhD in Cognitive Science I created a
>> platform for creating and running online psychology
>> experiments (https://www.labvanced.com
>> <https://www.labvanced.com/>), it’s easy to start and has a
>> very powerful UI. You will find our source code is open and
>> available on https://github.com/Labvanced/. Also we have an
>> open access experiment library, in which there are hundreds
>> of templates for all kinds of experiments, freely to import
>> and share for everyone.
>> (https://www.labvanced.com/expLibrary.html). I hope with that
>> we can be of value for some of you in this crisis.
>> Best, Caspar
>>> Dear Maarten + All:
>>> Yes, a few of my phenomena pages are based on it
>>> In my experience its biggest plus is that it is very easy, very approachable, thus very rapidly you can get astounding results.
>>> What I found lacking is a good GUI (but then I’m possibly spoiled by<https://michaelbach.de/ot/-misc/cappuccino/> <https://michaelbach.de/ot/-misc/cappuccino/>), a little in timing, some deficiencies in sound*, and a possibly slow 3D implementation (but then, again, this<https://michaelbach.de/ot/sze-silhouette/> <https://michaelbach.de/ot/sze-silhouette/> does put heavy demand on on-line 3D processing).
>>>> … Anyhow, here (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08198) is a preprint, …
>>> Impressive, thank you.
>>> Clearly p5.js has lots going for it.
>>> Best, Michael
>> visionlist mailing list
>> visionlist at visionscience.com
>> <mailto:visionlist at visionscience.com>
>> visionlist mailing list
>> visionlist at visionscience.com <mailto:visionlist at visionscience.com>
> Jonathan Peirce
> University of Nottingham
> visionlist mailing list
> visionlist at visionscience.com <mailto:visionlist at visionscience.com>
University of Nottingham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the visionlist