Evaluation of Remote Categorical Loudness Scaling

Judy G. Kopun, McKenna Turner, Sara E. Harris, Aryn M. Kamerer, Stephen T. Neely, Daniel M. Rasetshwane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Purpose: The aims of this study were to (a) demonstrate the feasibility of admin-istering categorical loudness scaling (CLS) tests in a remote setting, (b) assess the reliability of remote compared with laboratory CLS results, and (c) provide preliminary evidence of the validity of remote CLS testing. Method: CLS data from 21 adult participants collected in a home setting were compared to CLS data collected in a laboratory setting from previous studies. Five participants took part in studies in both settings. Precalibrated equipment was delivered to participants who performed headphone output level checks and measured ambient noise levels. After a practice run, CLS measurements were collected for two runs at 1 and 4 kHz. Results: Mean headphone output levels were within 1.5 dB of the target cali-bration level. Mean ambient noise levels were below the target level. Within-run variability was similar between the two settings, but across-run bias was smaller for data collected in the laboratory setting compared with the remote setting. Systematic differences in CLS functions were not observed for the five individuals who participated in both settings. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that precise stimulus levels can be delivered and background noise levels can be controlled in a home environment. Across-run bias for remote CLS was larger than for in-laboratory CLS, indicating that further work is needed to improve the reliability of CLS data collected in remote settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)45-56
Number of pages12
JournalAmerican journal of audiology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 2022

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of Remote Categorical Loudness Scaling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this