ArticlePloS one2025
Establishing standardized conditions for clinically available sound-localization tests: A multicenter approach.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sound localization is essential for auditory spatial awareness. The process relies on interaural differences in timing and level, and spectral cues. This study aimed to standardize sound-localization testing conditions across facilities in Japan, analyze the impact of early reflected sounds on localization accuracy, and compare outcomes between individuals with normal hearing and those with unilateral hearing loss. This study included 77 participants with normal hearing and 45 individuals with unilateral hearing loss, at 11 facilities. Sound-localization tests were conducted using nine loudspeakers arranged in a 180° horizontal arc. The stimuli consisted of Comité Consultatif International Téléphonique et Télégraphique (CCITT) and low-pass CCITT noise bursts at randomized levels of 50, 55, and 60 dB SPL. The reflected sound measurements employed time-stretched pulses to analyze early reflections (4-7 ms). The localization accuracy was assessed using the root-mean-square error and mean deviation score. Localization performance was negatively influenced by early reflections, with reflected sound envelope area and peak values within 4-7 ms correlating significantly with reduced accuracy (r = -0.535 to -0.555). Participants with normal hearing achieved a root-mean-square error of 2.0° ± 4.8°, whereas participants with unilateral hearing loss exhibited significantly greater errors (68.4° ± 40.7°, p < .001). Asymmetries in the left-right response accuracy correlated positively with the reflected sound characteristics (r > 0.6). Noise type (normal vs. low-pass CCITT) did not significantly impact performance in either group. Early reflections significantly compromise sound-localization accuracy, particularly in smaller testing environments where reflections overlap with direct sounds. Standardized testing protocols, in which early reflections are controlled, are critical for reliable assessments. The use of sound-absorbing materials can enhance the test precision, particularly in the clinical evaluation of unilateral hearing loss. These findings emphasize the need for optimizing acoustic conditions to improve the reliability and accuracy of sound-localization 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.