ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2022
Evaluation of Remote Categorical Loudness Scaling.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote auditory assessment using Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) and participant-owned devices.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Test-Retest Reliability and Preliminary Validation of Smartphone-Based Threshold and Categorical loudness Measures in Home Settings.Trends in hearingArticle
- Rapid Profiling of Loudness Among Older Adults.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study were to (a) demonstrate the feasibility of administering categorical loudness scaling (CLS) tests in a remote setting, (b) assess the reliability of remote compared with laboratory CLS results, and (c) provide preliminary evidence of the validity of remote CLS testing.
methodCLS data from 21 adult participants collected in a home setting were compared to CLS data collected in a laboratory setting from previous studies. Five participants took part in studies in both settings. Precalibrated equipment was delivered to participants who performed headphone output level checks and measured ambient noise levels. After a practice run, CLS measurements were collected for two runs at 1 and 4 kHz.
resultsMean headphone output levels were within 1.5 dB of the target calibration level. Mean ambient noise levels were below the target level. Within-run variability was similar between the two settings, but across-run bias was smaller for data collected in the laboratory setting compared with the remote setting. Systematic differences in CLS functions were not observed for the five individuals who participated in both settings.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that precise stimulus levels can be delivered and background noise levels can be controlled in a home environment. Across-run bias for remote CLS was larger than for in-laboratory CLS, indicating that further work is needed to improve the reliability of CLS data collected in remote settings. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17131856.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.