[solved] Response to journal editor who questions OpenSesame?

Comments

• amorphia

  June 2015 edited 6:54AM

  Perhaps I should also mention, I used the legacy PyGame back-end.
• sebastiaan

  June 2015 edited 6:54AM

  Hi Ben,

  You could point the editor towards the timing page (see below), which provides all the details. There is also a benchmark experiment in the BRM paper, but that's already a few years old.

  • http://osdoc.cogsci.nl/miscellaneous/timing/

  You haven't chosen the most temporally precise back-end: legacy is not as good in this respect as psycho and xpyriment. But for reaction-time experiments it's perfectly fine.

  But what strikes me about the editor's comment is not so much that he questions the timing (which is a healthy dose of skepticism), but that he appears to promote Inquisit, which is a commercial package. Link to their website included. That seems a bit inappropriate, doesn't it?

  Cheers,
  Sebastiaan

  
  
  Check out SigmundAI.eu for our OpenSesame AI assistant!
  
• amorphia

  June 2015 edited 6:54AM

  Thanks for the reply Sebastiaan! Very useful to see the BRM paper contains benchmarking - I think this should be sufficient for my purposes. I agree the editor's comments concerning Inquisit were slightly strange - I suppose the most charitable interpretation is that Inquisit is perhaps regarded as an "industry standard" and therefore other platforms should be compared? I don't know...