ArticlePloS one2025
Hear it here: Built environments predict ratings and descriptions of ambiguous sounds.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The built environments we move through are a filter for the stimuli we experience. If we are in a darker or a lighter room or space, a neutrally valenced sound could be perceived as more unpleasant or more pleasant. Past research suggests a role for the layout and lighting of a space in impacting how stimuli are rated, especially on bipolar valence scales. However, we do not know how affective experiences and descriptions of everyday auditory stimuli are impacted by built environments. In this study, we examine whether listening to a series of ambiguously valenced sounds in an older, darker building leads these sounds to be rated as less pleasant-and described using more negatively valenced language-compared to listening to these sounds in a newer building with more natural light. In a between-subjects design, undergraduate participants at an older building or a newer building (nOld = 46, nNew = 46; nFemale = 71, nMale = 18, MAge = 21.18, RangeAge = 17-38) listened to ten sounds that had previously been rated as ambiguous in valence, then rated these sounds on a bipolar valence scale before being asked to describe, in writing, how they felt about each sound. Participants rated sounds as being more pleasant at the New site compared to the Old site, but the sentiment of their descriptions only differed between sites when controlling for collinearity. However, bipolar scale ratings and description sentiment were highly correlated. Our findings suggest a role for the features of built environments in impacting how we appraise the valence of everyday sounds.
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.