Cited by 301Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingVisual perception and processing mechanismsSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review

Open access
Woods, Andy T., Velasco, Carlos, Levitan, Carmel A., Wan, Xiaoang, Spence, Charles·2015·PeerJ

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the recent literature on the use of internet-based testing to address important questions in perception research. Our goal is to provide a starting point for the perception researcher who is keen on assessing this tool for their own research goals. Internet-based testing has several advantages over in-lab research, including the ability to reach a relatively broad set of participants and to quickly and inexpensively collect large amounts of empirical data, via services such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk or Prolific Academic. In many cases, the quality of online data appears to match that collected in lab research. Generally-speaking, online participants tend to be more representative of the population at large than those recruited for lab based research. There are, though, some important caveats, when it comes to collecting data online. It is obviously much more difficult to control the exact parameters of stimulus presentation (such as display characteristics) with online research. There are also some thorny ethical elements that need to be considered by experimenters. Strengths and weaknesses of the online approach, relative to others, are highlighted, and recommendations made for those researchers who might be thinking about conducting their own studies using this increasingly-popular approach to research in the psychological sciences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7717/peerj.1058

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Alternative platforms offer access to new, more naïve populations than MTurk's.

    “These alternative platforms offer access to new, more naïve populations than MTurk's, and have fewer restrictions on the types of assignments researchers may ask participants to undertake (Vakharia & Lease, 2015;Woods et al., 2015).”

    From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Woods et al., 2015

  • Alternative platforms have fewer restrictions on the types of assignments researchers may ask participants to undertake.

    “These alternative platforms offer access to new, more naïve populations than MTurk's, and have fewer restrictions on the types of assignments researchers may ask participants to undertake (Vakharia & Lease, 2015;Woods et al., 2015).”

    From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Woods et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Thompson S Internet connectivity: addiction and dependency study Doctoral dissertation 1996 Available at http://www.academia.edu/download/30519620/Thompson_-_IADS.pdf

Authors
Woods, A. T., Velasco, C., Levitan, C. A., Wan, X., & Spence, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Occidental College (US)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2015-07-23
Volume
3
Pages
e1058
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1524842461
Cited by
301
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 8
FWCI
38.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L007053/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
web-based testing, Amazon Mechanical Turk, participant recruitment, research ethics, large-scale data collection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review