ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Influence of Traffic Input Data Quality on Road Noise Estimates Using the CNOSSOS-EU Method.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Psychoacoustic Feature Extraction and Spatio-Temporal Analysis Framework for Continuous Aircraft Noise Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate traffic input data are essential for reliable road noise mapping within the CNOSSOS-EU framework. However, European countries often rely on heterogeneous data sources and measurement practices, which may introduce uncertainties in noise estimates and reduce the comparability of results across regions. This study evaluates the performance of three traffic data collection methods, specifically microwave radar traffic counters, artificial intelligence-based cameras, and Google API-derived flows, in three representative test sites located in Italy and Romania. Traffic flows and vehicle category distributions obtained from each method were used as inputs for noise simulations, and predicted levels were compared with in situ noise measurements. A second analytical approach was developed to estimate short-term noise levels at a 10' resolution by combining CNOSSOS-EU power models with propagation matrices computed using commercial sound propagation software. The results show that both radar counters and cameras provide reliable inputs for day/evening/night indicators, although counters may miss flows under complex traffic conditions, and cameras may overestimate counts at high volumes. Google API-derived flows perform well only when traffic exceeds approximately 150 vehicles per hour and when the traffic model is carefully calibrated. Manual counting confirmed that all three input data collection methods exhibit non-negligible traffic loss, which contributes to a systematic underestimation of simulated noise levels when using average flow-based modeling. Differences between methods become more pronounced when analyzing short time intervals rather than aggregated indicators. Overall, this study highlights the strengths and limitations of each data source and provides guidance on their appropriate use for road noise assessment and strategic mapping.
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.