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

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.