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

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.

Keywords:

• Emotion
• remote testing
• hearing loss
• subjective ratings

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.