ArticleEar and hearing
Rapid Profiling of Loudness Among Older Adults.
Article in Ear and hearing. 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.
- Modeling the Influence of Bandwidth and Envelope on Categorical Loudness Scaling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Test-Retest Reliability and Preliminary Validation of Smartphone-Based Threshold and Categorical loudness Measures in Home Settings.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEfficient assessment of loudness may be an important step to enable custom signal-processing schemes in hearing devices to meet individual listeners' unique hearing profiles. A Bayesian adaptive procedure, the quick-Categorical Loudness Scaling (qCLS) procedure, to estimate loudness growth across a wide frequency range was evaluated in the present study in terms of its short-term test-retest reliability (in experiment 1) and agreement with existing loudness assessment methods (in experiment 2).
designIn experiment 1, 41 older adults were recruited, from whom the loudness growth across the frequency range from 250 to 8000 Hz was estimated using the qCLS procedure. During the procedure, the participants provided categorical loudness ratings to pure-tone stimuli presented at various frequencies and levels. The collected responses were used to update the estimates of equal-loudness-level contours at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 phons, and the test stimulus for the subsequent trial was selected randomly along 1 of these interim estimated equal-loudness contours. Each run of the procedure took 100 test trials to complete, approximately 5 min. Two runs of the qCLS procedure (test and retest) were conducted in the same test session. In experiment 2, 10 adults were recruited, and the loudness growth was assessed at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, using both the qCLS procedure (100 trials) and a widely adopted adaptive procedure, that is, Adaptive Categorical Loudness Scaling (ACALOS) procedure (300 trials).
resultsThe test-retest reliability was evaluated in experiment 1, for the estimated thresholds that separated the 11 response categories used for loudness rating, that is, the category boundaries. The mean absolute deviation between test and retest, averaged across participants, was 6.3 dB for the category boundaries. Results from experiment 2 showed that the one run of the qCLS procedure (100 trials) and the ACALOS procedure (300 trials) led to a mean absolute deviation, averaged across participants, of 5.1 dB.
conclusionsSatisfactory reliability may be achieved using the qCLS procedure within 100 trials of testing, which takes approximately 5 min to complete. The estimated loudness growth function also agrees well with those obtained using the ACALOS procedure.
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.