228
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

A Comparison between a remote testing and a laboratory test setting for evaluating emotional responses to non-speech sounds

ORCID Icon, & ORCID Icon
Pages 799-808 | Received 03 May 2021, Accepted 12 Nov 2021, Published online: 09 Dec 2021
 

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate remote testing as a tool for measuring emotional responses to non-speech sounds.

Design

Participants self-reported their hearing status and rated valence and arousal in response to non-speech sounds on an Internet crowdsourcing platform. These ratings were compared to data obtained in a laboratory setting with participants who had confirmed normal or impaired hearing.

Study sample

Adults with normal and impaired hearing.

Results

In both settings, participants with hearing loss rated pleasant sounds as less pleasant than did their peers with normal hearing. The difference in valence ratings between groups was generally smaller when measured in the remote setting than in the laboratory setting. This difference was the result of participants with normal hearing rating sounds as less extreme (less pleasant, less unpleasant) in the remote setting than did their peers in the laboratory setting, whereas no such difference was noted for participants with hearing loss. Ratings of arousal were similar from participants with normal and impaired hearing; the similarity persisted in both settings.

Conclusions

In both test settings, participants with hearing loss rated pleasant sounds as less pleasant than did their normal hearing counterparts. Future work is warranted to explain the ratings of participants with normal hearing.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Gabrielle Buono and Sarah Alfieri for their help with data collection in the laboratory test setting and Fran Copelli and Sin Tung Lau who assisted with study preparation at Ryerson University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

Portions of this work were funded by Sonova AG and by the Dan and Margaret Charitable Trust.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.