ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Remote auditory assessment using Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) and participant-owned devices.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuropsychological Assessment Using Portable Automated Rapid Testing in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Multi-dimensional evaluation of user-operated audible contrast sensitivity tests towards efficient hearing healthcare services.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Portable automated rapid testing for auditory assessment: repeated at-home testing in older adults.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Age-Related Differences in Comprehending Speech in Competition.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Evolving perspectives on speech perception assessment in adults with cochlear implants: Are we using the right tests?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- Auditory discrimination improvement in young adults by a digital auditory game-based training protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- PLFest: A New Platform for Accessible, Reproducible, and Open Perceptual Learning Research.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2024Article
- Comparison of Psychometric Functions Measured Using Remote Testing and Laboratory Testing.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Multidimensional relationships between sensory perception and cognitive aging.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
- Validation of the adaptive scan method in the quest for time-efficient methods of testing auditory processes.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Web-based psychoacoustics of binaural hearing: Two validation experiments.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Effects of Gamification on Assessment of Spatial Release From Masking.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a Spanish-language spatial release from masking task in a Mexican population.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- At-Home Auditory Assessment Using Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) to Understand Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties.Trends in 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Remote testing of auditory function can be transformative to both basic research and hearing healthcare; however, historically, many obstacles have limited remote collection of reliable and valid auditory psychometric data. Here, we report performance on a battery of auditory processing tests using a remotely administered system, Portable Automatic Rapid Testing. We compare a previously reported dataset collected in a laboratory setting with the same measures using uncalibrated, participant-owned devices in remote settings (experiment 1, n = 40) remote with and without calibrated hardware (experiment 2, n = 36) and laboratory with and without calibrated hardware (experiment 3, n = 58). Results were well-matched across datasets and had similar reliability, but overall performance was slightly worse than published norms. Analyses of potential nuisance factors such as environmental noise, distraction, or lack of calibration failed to provide reliable evidence that these factors contributed to the observed variance in performance. These data indicate feasibility of remote testing of suprathreshold auditory processing using participants' own devices. Although the current investigation was limited to young participants without hearing difficulties, its outcomes demonstrate the potential for large-scale, remote hearing testing of more hearing-diverse populations both to advance basic science and to establish the clinical viability of auditory remote testing.
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.