Feasibility of efficient smartphone-based threshold and loudness assessments in typical home settings

Chen Xu; Lena Schell-Majoor; Birger Kollmeier

doi:10.1101/2024.11.19.24317529

Abstract

Ambient noise is a critical factor affecting the precision of mobile hearing tests conducted in home environments. Monitoring noise levels during out-of-booth measurements provides essential information about the suitability of the setting for accurate audiometric testing. When ambient noise is controlled, results are expected to be comparable to in-booth measurements. This study remotely conducted air-conduction pure-tone audiometry and adaptive categorical loudness scaling (ACALOS) tests at 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz using a smartphone, while an integrated microphone and a dosimeter app were used to quantify ambient noise levels. Additionally, a reinforced ACALOS (rACALOS) method was proposed to integrate threshold measurement into the ACALOS procedure. The rACALOS method not only improves the accuracy of threshold estimation but also increases efficiency by combining two independent procedures into a single, streamlined process. As a result, ambient noise levels were mostly below the maximum permissible level. Hearing tests conducted via smartphone demonstrated moderate-to-excellent reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) exceeding 0.75, and strong validity, with biases of less than 1 dB. In simulations, the rACALOS method reduced the bias towards pre-assumed thresholds, and in behavioral experiments, it showed a stronger correlation with pure-tone audiometric thresholds than the baseline method. Overall, this study demonstrates that administering pure-tone audiometry and ACALOS tests at home is feasible, valid, efficient, and reliable when ambient noise is sufficiently low.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the benefits of easy access and early diagnosis, a significant concern with mobile hearing tests is the lack of what Zhao et al. (2022) refer to as ‘auditory hygiene’. In laboratory settings, optimal auditory hygiene is ensured through the use of soundproof booths, calibrated equipment, attentive participants, and supervision by trained personnel. In contrast, mobile audiometric tests conducted in home environments typically lack these controlled conditions, which may compromise the accuracy of the results. Thus, it is important to investigate the impact of this reduced auditory hygiene on the reliability of mobile hearing assessments.

Previous studies have demonstrated that conducting hearing tests outside of sound-treated booths can be feasible under certain conditions. Behar et al. (2021) reviewed audiometric assessments performed without booths and highlighted several viable solutions, such as testing in quiet environments with sound-attenuating headphones, using insert earphones or over-the-ear earmuffs, and employing active noise reduction earmuffs (Maclennan-Smith et al., 2013; Swanepoel et al., 2015; Brennan-Jones et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2017). Furthermore, recent research (e.g., Margolis et al., 2022; Meinke & Martin, 2023) has proposed standards for defining the maximum permissible ambient noise levels (MPANLs) for audiometric test rooms, based on the use of specific earphones (e.g., insert, supra-aural, circumaural). If ambient noise does not exceed the MPANL for a given earphone type, the environment is generally considered suitable for accurate audiometric testing.

In addition to the test environment, the choice of hearing assessment is another key consideration. Almufarrij et al. (2022) reviewed 187 web- and app-based tools for remote hearing tests, finding that pure-tone audiometry and speech-in-noise tests dominate the landscape, representing 49% and 22% of all tools, respectively. However, to our knowledge, only a few studies (e.g., Kopun et al., 2022) have explored the remote application of categorical loudness scaling (CLS), a supra-threshold test widely used in clinical audiology for diagnostics and hearing device fitting. While Kopun et al. (2022) demonstrated the preliminary feasibility of conducting CLS remotely, three major limitations emerged: (1) the equipment used for remote testing was a laptop rather than a smartphone, (2) only five participants (N = 5) were involved in the validation study, and (3) the reliability of CLS data collected in remote settings was suboptimal and requires improvement. To address these limitations, we extended the work of Kopun et al. (2022) by increasing the sample of young adults with normal hearing, optimizing the original CLS method for use with smartphones, and by integrating an audiogram measurement procedure into the CLS procedure.

As reported in Almufarrij et al. (2022), only 12% of hearing assessment tools have undergone validation and evaluation through peer-reviewed publications, highlighting that the validity and test-retest reliability of most tools available in app stores remain unknown.

Consequently, the methods for quantifying validity and reliability of audiometric tests in home environments should be clearly defined, and results on both validity and test-retest reliability must be reported. Specifically, Bland-Altman plots are often used to validate audiometric tests, such as the matrix sentence test via smart speaker (Ooster et al., 2020) or categorical loudness scaling (CLS) (Fultz et al., 2020). For test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) are typically used to assess agreement between repeated measures (Koo & Li, 2016).

Specifically for CLS, Rasetshwane et al. (2015) and Kopun et al. (2022) introduced within-run variability and across-run bias as additional measures for assessing reliability in a home environment. In the present study, we incorporate not only basic metrics such as correlation coefficient (R), bias, and root-mean-squared-error (RMSE), but also advanced statistical measures from previous studies to comprehensively report the validity and test-retest reliability of smartphone-based audiometric tests.

The adaptive CLS procedure (ACALOS, Brand & Hohmann, 2002; ISO 16832, 2006) often inaccurately estimates the audiometric threshold, as indicated by a correlation coefficient of less than 0.5 between the ‘true’ audiometric and estimated thresholds, reflecting a weak correlation. Please note that the thresholds estimated by CLS (hereafter referred to as ’CLS thresholds’) are defined as the level corresponding to 2.5 categorical units (CU) on the loudness growth function, as outlined by Oetting et al. (2014). Oetting et al. (2014) further demonstrated that the threshold predicted by the ACALOS method did not coincide with the ‘true’ audiometric threshold. This discrepancy may be at least partially attributed to the use of different stimuli—narrow-band noise in ACALOS versus pulsed tones in audiometry—and distinct psychophysical paradigms, namely, categorical magnitude estimation in ACALOS versus target sound detection in audiometry. To reduce this discrepancy, our study introduces a reinforced ACALOS (rACALOS) method, which integrates a more accurate threshold estimation process within the ACALOS procedure. This rACALOS approach allows participants to perform both threshold and ACALOS measurements in a single procedure rather than separate tests, thereby increasing efficiency.

Additionally, the rACALOS method enhances reliability at low SPLs near the hearing threshold by incorporating additional trials with the aim to provide a more accurate estimate of the ‘true’ hearing threshold which is usually directly assessed in pure-tone audiometry.

To accurately estimate the ’true’ hearing threshold as a reference, it is essential to account for as many influencing factors as possible. In our previous work, we investigated the impact of experimenter supervision on pure-tone audiometry and adaptive categorical loudness scaling (ACALOS) outcomes using a smartphone-based application in a sound-attenuated booth with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners (Xu et al., 2024b). Our findings indicated that experimenter supervision had no significant effect (Xu et al., 2024b). Additionally, to address potential distractions for listeners, we proposed and simulated a model-free adaptive procedure for robust and efficient threshold estimation—the graded response bracketing (GRaBr) approach (Xu et al., 2024a). The present study aims to further validate GRaBr by comparing its performance with established baseline methods in human participants.

Taken together, the primary objectives of this study are: 1) to experimentally evaluate the performance of the novel, efficient GRaBr and rACALOS methods in human participants; 2) to assess the validity and test-retest reliability of the smartphone-based application for pure-tone audiometry and ACALOS in a home environment with some degree of background noise, given the absence of a sound booth.

METHODS

Participants

Fifteen young adults with normal hearing (aged 20 to 35 years; 4 males, 11 females) participated in this study. All participants were members of working groups or students at the University of Oldenburg, recruited primarily through verbal announcements. The three authors did not participate in the study. All participants self-reported no hearing issues and were presumed to have normal hearing (NH). Two inclusion criteria were applied: (i) an air- conduction pure-tone average (PTA-4) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz in the better ear had to be less than or equal to 20 dB HL, and (ii) symmetric hearing, defined as a threshold difference of no more than 20 dB between ears at any test frequency. All 15 participants met these criteria. Some listeners (N = 5) received compensation of €12 per hour for their participation, while others took part as part of their work duties. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oldenburg (Drs. EK/2023/004).

Equipment, Procedure, and Environment

Prior to the start of remote testing, a test kit was assembled (see supplemental materials), which included a smartphone (OnePlus, Android), a USB-C charger, and HD650 circumaural headphones (Sennheiser, Wedemark, Hanover, Germany). The smartphone and headphones were pre-calibrated using a Brüel & Kjær (B&K) artificial ear 4153, a B&K 0.5-inch microphone 4134, a B&K microphone pre-amplifier 2669, and a B&K measuring amplifier 2610, with a target calibration level of 80 dB SPL. Upon handing over the test kit, participants received a brief oral explanation of the remote experiments, and consent forms were signed before they began.

Participants could initiate testing at home by connecting to the internet via WLAN and accessing the provided website. For data security, a VPN connection was established using the ‘GlobalProtect’ app when accessing the site. The workflow of the web-based application for remote testing was described in Xu et al. (2024b). A Raspberry Pi 3 Model B (Raspberry Pi Foundation, UK), a Linux-based microcontroller, served as the server hosting the measurement site. All behavioral data were stored on an SD card within the Raspberry Pi, located at the University of Oldenburg.

The tele-health model, following the definition in Robler et al. (2022), was a self-testing model, requiring participants to complete all remote measurements within one week and return the test kit. The home environments were primarily located in rural regions of northwestern Germany, including cities such as Oldenburg, Cloppenburg, Jever, and Bad Zwischenahn.

Noise Level Measurement

The smartphone app “Decibel X” (SkyPaw Co., Ltd) was used to measure ambient noise levels and is freely available for download on the Google Play store. The app was configured with an A-weighted frequency filter and a slow time weighting of 500 ms. Real-time, average, and maximum environmental noise levels were displayed on the smartphone screen, but no sound files were recorded during the measurement. A digital sound level meter (Voltcraft SL- 100), with an accuracy of ±2 dB at 1 kHz and compliant with the EN 60651 Class 3 standard, was used to calibrate the smartphone’s integrated microphone. The smartphone app’s parameters, including the A-weighted filter and slow time weighting were set as closely as possible to match the digital sound level meter. The app was then calibrated with a linear gain adjustment of 13.7 dB. Please note that the same smartphone and headphones were provided to all test participants, ensuring a consistent gain across measurements. Calibration stimuli consisted of narrowband noise signals fixed at 80 dB SPL.

At the start of each measurement session, the participants were required to document the current ambient noise level (see supplementary materials for remote measurement guidelines). A total of 24 sessions were conducted, consisting of 4 listening tests (SIUD, GRaBr, ACALOS, and rACALOS; see details below) across 3 test frequencies (0.25, 1, and 4 kHz) and 2 runs (test and retest), presented in randomized order. Participants were allowed to take short breaks between sessions. No specific instructions were provided regarding how to hold the smartphone during ambient noise measurement. Although participants were encouraged (but not required) to complete all sessions in the morning or evening, they were strongly advised to monitor the real- time noise level using the “Decibel X” app throughout each session. If the real-time noise level exceeded 45 dB(A), participants were instructed to pause testing until the noise level fell below this threshold. A limit of 45 dB(A) was chosen based on Kopun et al. (2022), who demonstrated that remote CLS results are comparable to in-lab CLS measurements when ambient noise is kept below 50 dB(A). Additionally, the time and location of each remote session were recorded.

Listening Tests

Pure-tone audiometry

Two adaptive methods, the single-interval up-down (SIUD) procedure and the graded response bracketing (GRaBr) approach, were used to measure air-conduction pure-tone hearing thresholds (Lecluyse et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2024a). Xu et al. (2024a) conducted computer simulations demonstrating that GRaBr significantly outperformed the established SIUD method in terms of robustness against both long- and short-term inattention, as well as efficiency. In this study, the self-administered listening tests conducted at home present an ideal scenario for using an inattention-aware method like GRaBr, as participants are no longer supervised by an experimenter and are therefore supposed to be more susceptible to distractions.

In both procedures, listeners were presented with two tones, one tone, or silence, and were required to indicate how many tones they heard. The sound level was adjusted adaptively based on the participants’ responses: the task became more challenging following correct answers and easier after incorrect responses. The primary distinction between SIUD and GRaBr lies in the level difference between the two tones presented in most trials: fixed at 10 dB for SIUD, but variable for GRaBr. To ensure a fair comparison between the two methods, key parameters, such as the minimum number of trials, number of reversals, and starting level, were matched as closely as possible. Both procedures commenced with a cue tone set at 60 dB HL with a random bias of less than 5 dB and terminated after a minimum of 14 reversals and 10 trials. For both methods, the first four reversals in each track were discarded.

Each pure tone lasted 0.2 s, with cosine ramps of 0.02 s and a 0.3 s interval between tones. Test frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz were used for the stimuli. In SIUD, the correct response rates were fitted to an S-shaped logistic psychometric function, and the level at the 50% correct response point (L₅₀) was estimated as the hearing threshold. For GRaBr, responses from the upper and lower tracks were fitted to two independent psychometric functions, and the hearing threshold was calculated as the mean level at the 50% correct response point of both functions (i.e., 0.5*(L_50,upper + L_50,lower)). To assess test-retest reliability, both methods (SIUD and GRaBr) were repeated, with the test and retest referred to as Run 1 and Run 2, respectively. No specific time interval was recommended between the test and retest; participants were simply instructed to complete both runs within one week.

Adaptive categorical loudness scaling

The adaptive categorical loudness scaling (ACALOS) method was used to assess the loudness growth function (Brand & Hohmann, 2002; ISO 16832, 2006). In the ACALOS task, participants rated the loudness of stimuli on an 11-point scale with descriptors ranging from ’very soft”, “soft”, “medium”, “loud”, and “very loud” with 4 unnamed intermediate categories in between, plus the two limiting categories “not heard”, and “too loud”. The stimulus levels, ranging from -10 to 105 dB, were presented in a pseudo-random order following an initial estimation of the user-specific dynamic range (Phase I, see Fig. 1), which was updated to obtain a more representative placement of test level in Phase II, encompassing 26 trials. At the end of the procedure, a loudness growth function was modeled by fitting two linear segments and a transition region using a Bezier fit, following the BTUX fitting method (Oetting et al., 2014).

Fig. 1.

An example track of the reinforced adaptive categorical loudness scaling (rCALOS), where the level (in dB HL) is plotted as a function of the number of trials N. The listener’s response (in categorical units (CU)) is annotated with numbers between 0 (‘not heard’) and 50 (‘too loud’). Left dotted rectangle region: Phase I (‘dynamic range estimation’); Middle dotted rectangle region: Phase II (‘presenting and re-estimation’); Right solid red rectangle region: Phase III (‘hearing threshold level reinforcement’); Red dash-dotted line: target threshold. In Phase III, the step size is set to 5 dB, and the number of trials is set to 10.

However, applying ACALOS without modifications in a mobile setting for remote testing may pose challenges. Fluctuating ambient noise in home environments could affect loudness judgments at low sound pressure levels (SPL). Furthermore, as a supra-threshold measure of loudness perception, ACALOS often fails to provide reliable categorical loudness estimates near the hearing threshold (Oetting et al., 2014). Oetting et al. (2014) reported that the mean intra- subject standard deviation of loudness levels close to the threshold was notably high (around 10 dB), yielding significant variability in the hearing threshold estimation from loudness judgments near the threshold.

To address the limitations of ACALOS near the hearing threshold, a modified method, reinforced adaptive categorical loudness scaling (rACALOS), was introduced to improve the accuracy of hearing threshold level (HTL) estimation. An example run is shown in Fig. 1. The rACALOS followed the same adaptive rules as ACALOS during Phases I and II (see above) but presented additional stimuli near the hearing threshold to better estimate HTL. The starting level of Phase III was set at the minimum level reached in Phases I and II, plus 5 dB. In this phase, a one-up-one-down adaptive rule was applied: the stimulus level increased by 5 dB if participants responded with “not heard” and decreased by 5 dB if they selected other loudness categories (e.g., “very soft,” “medium”). Phase III consisted of 10 trials.

The stimuli used were one-third-octave-band low-noise noises centered at 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz (Kohlrausch et al., 1997). Each noise stimulus had a duration of 1 second with 0.05-second rise and fall ramps. To assess reliability, participants repeated both ACALOS and rACALOS measurements at all frequencies for both test and retest conditions.

Accuracy of HTL estimation for the rACALOS procedure

Computer simulations

Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to compare the baseline ACALOS and rACALOS in terms of accuracy in estimating the hearing threshold level (HTL). The statistical behavior of the virtual listener was based on the models described by Brand et al. (2000) and Oetting et al. (2014), assuming a normal distribution. The mean response of the virtual listener was modeled using a three-parameter loudness function consisting of two linear segments with slopes m_low and m_high, and a smoothed transition region between 15 and 35 categorical units (CU). A standard deviation of 4 CU, derived from empirical data in Brand et al. (2000), was employed. The simulated loudness judgment was drawn from a normal distribution defined by this mean (loudness function) and the standard deviation (4 CU) for a given presentation level L.

The simulated loudness responses were constrained to the range of 0 to 50 CU and rounded to the nearest 5 CU. The target loudness function parameters were set to 84.1 dB HL for L_cu, 0.3 for m_low, and 1.0 for m_high. Phase III of the rACALOS procedure varied the number of trials (N) between 10 and 30 in increments of 10, with step sizes of 2 and 5 dB. The Monte-Carlo simulations were executed 1000 times in total. All simulations were implemented in MATLAB R2021a (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA) and Octave 5.2.0.

Behavioral experiments

In this study, we conducted behavioral experiments using a repeated-measures design, where 15 participants completed both pure-tone audiometry and ACALOS tests. We compared the estimated HTL from the ACALOS and rACALOS methods to the ‘true’ HTL measured by pure- tone audiometry (i.e., GRaBr and SIUD). To assess the relationship between pure-tone and ACALOS thresholds, various statistical methods were employed, i.e., correlation coefficients (R), root mean square error (RMSE), and bias, along with scatter plots to evaluate the performance of the different ACALOS methods.

Statistics

To evaluate the validity of GRaBr and rACALOS relative to standard audiometric and CLS procedures conducted in a soundproof booth, we utilized Bland-Altman plots following the approach of Fultz et al. (2020) and Giavarina (2015). Additionally, test-retest reliability for both audiometric procedures was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) as per Buhl et al. (2022). Reliability levels were categorized as poor (ICC < 0.5), moderate (ICC ≥ 0.5), good (ICC ≥ 0.75), and excellent (ICC ≥ 0.9). Following Kopun et al. (2022), we further applied mean interquartile range (MIQR) and mean signed difference (MSD) metrics to evaluate the reliability of both ACALOS procedures, with lower values indicating greater reliability. Detailed statistical methods for validity and reliability assessment are provided in Supplementary Materials S1.

RESULTS

Noise Level Measurements

Fig. 2 presents a box plot of the ambient noise levels recorded by each participant (N = 15), who documented the noise level a total of 24 times, corresponding to 24 measurement sessions at home within a week. Notably, the noise levels for all participants remained below the recommended upper limit of 45 dB A. The median noise level across subjects was 36.0 dB, which was approximately 0.5 dB higher than the reference noise level measured inside the sound-attenuated booth. Overall, the sound levels in participants’ homes were considerably low and comparable to those measured within the booth, indicating a suitable test environment. A few participants (e.g., No. 2 and No. 8) lived near a train station, resulting in slightly elevated noise levels compared to others. Additionally, one participant (No. 1) misinterpreted the task and consistently rounded the recorded noise level to an integer, leading to uniform values across sessions.

Fig. 2.

Ambient noise level (in dB A) measurement across participants (N = 15). Medians, 25th and 75th percentiles, and interquartile ranges (IQR) are visualized in the box-plot while the end of the whiskers denotes the minimum and maximum, indicating the 5th and 95th percentiles respectively. Red dashed line: lab reference (i.e., ambient noise level measured within a booth). Black dashed line: median value across subjects.

Validation Experiment

GRaBr

Fig. 3 compares pure-tone audiometry results obtained in the booth using the standard audiometry versus testing at home using the GRaBr procedure at frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz. Most data points fell within the 95% level of agreement, indicating that the at-home and in- booth measurements did not differ systematically. Furthermore, the 95% confidence interval of the bias (depicted by the shaded region) encompassed the line of equality, suggesting no significant bias between the two testing environments. Although the correlation between HTL_booth and HTL_home was moderate, both the bias and root mean squared error (RMSE) were relatively small. Overall, the comprehensive statistical analyses indicated good agreement between results from both environments, supporting the validity of the smartphone-based remote method for pure-tone audiometry as an alternative to standard assessments conducted in the booth, provided that ambient noise levels remain low.

Fig. 3.

Bland-Altman plot of hearing threshold levels (HTL) in dB HL of frequencies at 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz (represented with circle, triangle, and rectangle, respectively) measured inside the booth (i.e., HTL_booth) using the standard audiometry and at home (i.e., HTL_home) using the GRaBr procedure. Red dashed lines: 95% level of agreement; Black solid line: bias between the two measurement environments; Grey shaded rectangle area: 95% confidence interval of the bias. The correlation coefficient (R), bias (BIAS), and root mean squared error (RMSE) are provided in the top-left corner.

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of frequency (0.25, 1, and 4 kHz) and test environment (booth versus home) on hearing thresholds. As anticipated, there was no significant main effect of the test environment (p = 0.77); however, the main effect of frequency was significant (p < 0.05). Despite the lack of a significant effect from the test environment, post-hoc tests comparing HTLs between the home and booth settings indicated that thresholds measured in the booth did not significantly differ from those measured at home at 1 kHz, while a significant difference was observed at 0.25 and 4 kHz (p < 0.05).

Validation results for the SIUD procedure in a home environment, compared to a standard audiometer, are presented in Figure S1. The SIUD method showed a bias of 0.6 dB, indicating good validity. Additionally, the SIUD procedure differed significantly from GRaBr in measured thresholds (p < 0.05). Overall, the validity of both adaptive procedures was comparable, suggesting that both are suitable for remote measurements in home settings.

rACALOS

Fig. 4 presents the Bland-Altman plot comparing the median levels of each categorical unit (CU) measured inside the booth using a standard CLS approach and at home using the rACALOS approach at frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz. The 95% levels of agreement (LOA) for the upper and lower limits were 26.3 dB and -19.6 dB, respectively. Only a small number of points fell outside the 95% LOA, indicating that the rACALOS measurements in the booth did not systematically differ from those obtained remotely. The overall bias between the two environments across all participants was notably small at 3.38 dB, suggesting that the rACALOS approach demonstrates good validity compared to the standard CLS approach.

Fig. 4.

Bland-Altman plot of median levels assigned to each CU (denoted with different colors) for three frequencies (represented with different shapes) for comparing two test environments, i.e., inside the booth using a standard CLS procedure and at home using the rACALOS procedure for each participant. A comprehensive set of statistical measures containing R, Bias, and RMSE of each CU is provided in the embedded table located at the bottom-left corner. See Fig. 3 for an explanation of the Bland-Altman plot and Supplementary Materials S1 for its statistical implication.

The R values for categorical units (CUs) of 35 or higher ranged from 0.57 to 0.62, indicating a moderate positive correlation. In contrast, CUs of 25 or lower exhibited an R value below 0.45, suggesting a weak correlation. The biases were generally below 5 dB, and as CU decreased, the RMSE tended to increase. This phenomenon may be attributed to the relatively high variability in individual hearing thresholds, resulting in a steeper loudness perception slope at lower levels. Consequently, this leads to reduced validity at low categorical unit (CU) levels. However, it is important to note that the slightly elevated background noise levels in the home environment did not systematically affect this variability, as both positive and negative deviations were observed between threshold levels estimated at home and those measured in the booth.

To examine the effects of three within-subject factors—test environment (booth/home), frequency (0.25/1/4 kHz), and CU (ranging from 0 to 50 CU in 5 CU increments)—on median levels corresponding to each CU, a three-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. As expected, the test environment showed no significant main effect, while both frequency and CU exhibited significant main effects (p < 0.05). A post-hoc t-test analyzed the effect of the test environment across all frequencies and CUs, revealing no significant differences in most of the 33 groups of comparison (i.e., 3 levels of frequency * 11 levels of CU), except for three groups (measurement at 4 kHz with 5, 25, and 45 CU).

The results of the validation experiment comparing the original ACALOS procedure with the standard CLS procedure are shown in Fig. S2 of the supplementary material, indicating good validity comparable to that of the rACALOS procedure discussed above. Furthermore, ACALOS differed significantly from the rACALOS approach (p < 0.05), primarily reflecting the higher sampling and weighting of the loudness data at low levels by rACALOS.

Test-Retest Reliability Experiment

SIUD and GRaBr

The GRaBr procedure showed test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values exceeding 0.75 (p < 0.05), indicating good reliability across all three frequencies, whereas the SIUD procedure yielded ICC values ranging from 0.59 to 0.77 (p < 0.05), reflecting moderate test-retest reliability. This difference was significant (p < 0.05), i.e., GRaBr demonstrated significantly higher test-retest reliability than SIUD based on these metrics. Further details on reliability statistics can be found in Supplementary Document S2 and Table S1.

A significant main effect of frequency was observed (p < 0.05). Moreover, pairwise t-tests were performed to assess reliability by comparing the two runs for both adaptive procedures across all three frequencies, showing no significant differences between runs in most cases, except for GRaBr at 1 kHz (p < 0.05).

ACALOS and rACALOS

The reliability of the ACALOS and rACALOS procedures was assessed using across-run bias (quantified by mean signed difference, MSD) and within-run variability (measured by mean interquartile range, MIQR). Both adaptive procedures demonstrated an MSD of less than 5 dB at all frequencies, indicating a small across-run bias. Most MIQR values did not exceed 10 dB for either procedure at the three frequencies, although they were typically larger than 10 dB at 5, 10, and 15 CU, reflecting a consistent within-run variability. Overall, these metrics suggested that both ACALOS and rACALOS exhibited strong reliability. Please refer to Supplementary Material S3 and Table S2 for detailed information on the reliability comparison of the ACALOS and rACALOS procedures.

A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the procedure, indicating a statistically significant difference between ACALOS and rACALOS (p < 0.05). Since the rACALOS and ACALOS procedures are identical in Phases I and II, this difference is likely attributable to the additional trials included in Phase III of the rACALOS procedure (see Fig. 1).

No significant effect was found for frequency, and as expected, the two runs (test and retest measurements) did not differ. A subsequent post-hoc t-test compared median levels of the ACALOS and rACALOS procedures between runs 1 and 2 across three frequencies and 11 categories, indicating that median levels for run 1 did not significantly differ from those for run 2 in most cases (31 out of 33 groups of comparison = 3 levels of frequency * 11 levels of CU), except for two groups (measurements at 0.25 kHz for 25 and 40 CUs).