[visionlist] Identifying subjects (was Re: Highly cited publications on vision in which authors were also subjects?)

[Robert Sekuler]

We have taken the initials route described by Jonathan. Only once did cause a (minor) problem when we had to label  a graph with an author’s  initials.   That was a 1991 Vision Research paper I did with Scott D. Tweten.  Scott’s initials on graphs tended to confuse readers.
----------------------------
Professor of Neuroscience
F & L Salvage Professor of Psychology 
Brandeis University
 

> On May 28, 2020, at 11:29, Jonathan D Victor <jdvicto at med.cornell.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> We continue to use the first approach mentioned by Jeff -- traditional labeling by subject initials for all subjects.  To me, this is scientifically justified, as it allows comparison across papers, so we obtain a HIPAA waiver because of privacy concerns.
>  
> JV
>  
> From: visionlist <visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com> On Behalf Of Mulligan, Jeffrey B. (ARC-TH)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:42 PM
> To: visionlist at visionscience.com
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [visionlist] Identifying subjects (was Re: Highly cited publications on vision in which authors were also subjects?)
>  
> On a somewhat related topic:
>  
> When I was starting out, the tradition was to label subjects’ data in the figures with their initials.  This made it pretty easy to identify which data came from the authors.  Non-author subjects were indicated by their initials also.
>  
> Now that practice has fallen out of fashion, I imagine due to privacy concerns.  My opinion is that author subjects should be indicated by their initials, while using de-identified codes (e.g. S1, S2, etc.) for naïve subjects.
>  
>  
> Non-author non-naïve subjects may be a borderline case.  I had the occasion to revisit one of my early papers a few months ago, and noticed that one of the subjects in one of the experiments was DRW…  I had completely forgotten that Dave had been a participant, and I was glad to have been reminded of the fact.  Maybe people who are better-organized than me have all of that information in their lab notebooks…
>  
> -Jeff
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: visionlist <visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com> on behalf of "Brown, Angela" <brown.112 at osu.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 11:03 AM
> To: "Robert Hess, Dr." <robert.hess at mcgill.ca>, "gabrieljacobdiaz at gmail.com" <gabrieljacobdiaz at gmail.com>, "visionlist at visionscience.com" <visionlist at visionscience.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [visionlist] Highly cited publications on vision in which authors were also subjects?
>  
> This is one disadvantage of studying inarticulate subjects (animals, babies): you can’t introspect on their experience, and they can’t tell you what they see.
>  
> Angela Brown
>  
> From: "visionlist-bounces at visionscience. com" <visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com> on behalf of "Robert Hess, Dr." <robert.hess at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:25 PM
> To: "gabrieljacobdiaz at gmail.com" <gabrieljacobdiaz at gmail.com>, "visionlist at visionscience. com" <visionlist at visionscience.com>
> Subject: Re: [visionlist] Highly cited publications on vision in which authors were also subjects?
>  
> Hi Gabriel,
>  
> I concur with John. In my lab you can’t get away with not being a subject in your own psychophysical experiment, for the simple reason that you need to know what artefacts to control, naive subjects won’t tell you this interesting information. I am a subject in almost all of my normal psychophysics and imaging.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> On May 27, 2020, at 11:47 AM, John Robson <jgr11 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>  
> Gabriel,
> 
> I believe that both Fergus Campbell and I developed quite a reputation for asking authors of drafts of psychophysical papers about the subjective experience of being an experimental subject. We both always felt that the design of experiments should take into account what it was like to be a subject and it was always desirable for authors to be among the subjects. You will find that all the most cited psychophysical papers of both Campbell and myself rely heavily (if not exclusively) on reports of observations made by their authors.
> 
> John Robson
> 
> On May 27 2020, Gabriel Diaz wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear vision community,
> 
> In response to a recent proposal to my IRB, I have received a request to
> provide examples of manuscripts in which the PI is also the subject in the
> manuscript.  I am hoping that some of you may be able to help me track some
> down. The more impactful the better, whether that be indicated by citation
> count, recognition of the publication venue, or any other metric, as long
> as it will be evident to a non-expert.
> 
> Extra points if the study involves some element of motor behavior /
> perception & action.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> - gD
> 
> 
> -- 
> Professor John Robson  ScD FRS
> Senior Research Professor in Vision Science
> University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston,  TX 77204-2020
> +1 (713) 743 1807
> and
> Fellow, Gonville & Caius College, Trinity St., Cambridge, CB2 1TA
> and
> Herrings House, Wilbraham Rd, Fulbourn, Cambridge, CB21 5EU
> +44 1223 880277
> jgr11 at cam.ac.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> visionlist mailing list
> visionlist at visionscience.com
> http://visionscience.com/mailman/listinfo/visionlist_visionscience.com
>  
> _______________________________________________
> visionlist mailing list
> visionlist at visionscience.com
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://visionscience.com/mailman/listinfo/visionlist_visionscience.com__;!!DaRZpAeNFA!I97EkZr0pNxiErKhBiBHDRXL6EP92FeXwThk710S0L4Nhng0H0FP9q6o2FfeeleBDA$ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist_visionscience.com/attachments/20200528/dbb42ca7/attachment-0001.html>