ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2024
Investigating the Utility of a Compact Loudspeaker Array for Audiometric Testing.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis project addressed the uses of a loudspeaker array for audiometric measurements. It sought to evaluate a prototype compact array in terms of the reliability of test results across sound booths.
methodA seven-loudspeaker array was developed to deliver sounds from -60° to +60° on an arc with a radius of 0.5 m. The system was equipped with a head position sensing system to maintain the listener's head near the optimal test position. Three array systems were distributed to each of the two test sites for within-subject assessments of booth equivalence on tests of sound localization, speech reception in noise, and threshold detection. A total of 36 subjects participated, 18 at each test site.
resultsResults showed excellent interbooth consistency on tests of sound localization using speech and noise signals, including conditions in which one or both ears were covered with a muff. Booth consistency was also excellent on sound field threshold measurements for detecting quasi-diffuse noise bands. Nonequivalence was observed in some cases of speech-in-noise tests, particularly with a small one-person booth. Acoustic analyses of in situ loudspeaker responses indicated that some of the nonequivalent comparisons on speech-in-noise tests could be traced to the effects of reflections.
conclusionsOverall, the results demonstrate the utility and reliability of a compact array for the assessment of localization ability, speech reception in noise, and sound field thresholds. However, the results indicate that researchers and clinicians should be aware of the reflection effects that can influence the results of sound field tests in which signal and noise levels from separate loudspeakers are critical.
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.