Trial reportPloS one2026
A new experimental method for evaluating the effectiveness of auditory signals under realistic background noise conditions: A randomized controlled pilot study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces a new experimental method for analyzing auditory signals in the presence of background noise and identifying sounds that are consistently easy for humans to notice in daily environments. Attention to a signal was inferred from a physiological orienting response, measured as the change in heart rate (HR) before and after the presentation of a test sound in an experimental environment designed to simulate daily life. The test sounds consisted of eight musical sounds each composed of two piano notes at different pitches, and eight complex sounds, each composed of two pure tones. Each sound interval-C + E or C + G#-was recorded at four different octaves, covering the frequency range of 130.8 Hz to 1661.4 Hz. The change in HR was calculated as the difference in the mean RR interval (RRI) over five beats before and after the test sound. The strength of the orienting response (OR) was quantified as the RRI difference normalized by the standard deviation of RRI. An absolute value greater than 2 was considered to indicate the presence of an orienting response. Twenty-two healthy young male participants participated in the experiment during a three-day, two-night stay, which was repeated after a washout period of at least one week. The results showed that OR values were reproducible for 11 of the 16 test sounds. Based on the corresponding OR values, C3 + E3 (musical sound) was identified as a suitable pre-signal due to its calming response (negative OR), whereas C6 + G#6 (complex sound) was identified as a suitable alarm signal due to its tension-inducing response (positive OR). These findings suggest that the OR metric for assessing physiological responses, provides a novel and effective approach for objectively evaluating human reactions to unexpected auditory stimuli, when combined with an experimental protocol that simulates daily life and background noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.