Minor nit: I'm not sure how one would double-blind an echolocation study.
I think one useful distinction we can draw from your point is that there's a difference between (1) establishing that human echolocation exists and (2) establishing that human echolocation is a useful skill for persons with visual impairment in their daily lives.
Regarding (1): Skimming the literature, human echolocation seems like a very robust lab phenomenon. I think it's safe to say we've established beyond a reasonable doubt the laboratory-fact of human echolocation in the general population using traditional psychometric research techniques. (I am not an expert, but the research linked from the target article has a pretty robust citation network in very good journals using a broad spectrum of lab techniques, google scholar turns up some review articles on the phenomenon in respected journals, etc.).
Regarding (2): After a very cursory search I don't see much out there. It's both messy and expensive to establish the success of coaching/skill acquisition (like training in echolocation) in the long-term wellness of individuals. There must be a robust literature on evaluating outcomes for learned skills (it's relevant to everything from evaluating skills for managing memory impairment to evaluating training programs for anger management skills to such pure horseshit as empathy training for corporate execs).
What criteria would you suggest for a successful experiment in (2)? Is there something you'd like to lean on as a precedent?
Also note that the target research article isn't interested in either (1) or (2). It takes (1) for granted and uses it to suggest a model of neural modularity that is task-oriented rather than modality oriented, but we're far enough down the comment thread that whatever.
I think one useful distinction we can draw from your point is that there's a difference between (1) establishing that human echolocation exists and (2) establishing that human echolocation is a useful skill for persons with visual impairment in their daily lives.
Regarding (1): Skimming the literature, human echolocation seems like a very robust lab phenomenon. I think it's safe to say we've established beyond a reasonable doubt the laboratory-fact of human echolocation in the general population using traditional psychometric research techniques. (I am not an expert, but the research linked from the target article has a pretty robust citation network in very good journals using a broad spectrum of lab techniques, google scholar turns up some review articles on the phenomenon in respected journals, etc.).
Regarding (2): After a very cursory search I don't see much out there. It's both messy and expensive to establish the success of coaching/skill acquisition (like training in echolocation) in the long-term wellness of individuals. There must be a robust literature on evaluating outcomes for learned skills (it's relevant to everything from evaluating skills for managing memory impairment to evaluating training programs for anger management skills to such pure horseshit as empathy training for corporate execs).
What criteria would you suggest for a successful experiment in (2)? Is there something you'd like to lean on as a precedent?
Also note that the target research article isn't interested in either (1) or (2). It takes (1) for granted and uses it to suggest a model of neural modularity that is task-oriented rather than modality oriented, but we're far enough down the comment thread that whatever.