Effective soundscape characterisation of an acoustic metamaterial based window: A comparison between laboratory and online methods

Assessment of acoustic metawindow unit through psychoacoustic analysis and human perception

“…Considering the Laboratory results as headset quality benchmark, intrarater reliability for the Online 1 experiment is determined by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). As a result, all the 16 participants tested reliability with an ICC ≥ 0.7 and Cronbach's alpha value ≥ 0.7 (minimum α=0.723, maximum α=0.875), proving the robustness of the online method used for the questionnaire assessing AMW unit soundscape impact [24].…”

“…The experimental laboratory questionnaire was conducted in a controlled environment room at the University of Perugia (IT) [23] and online on a second stage. Moreover, a technical note has been presented to support the methodology in this paper to discuss and highlight the robustness of the experimental method (which includes laboratory and online questionnaires) [24].…”

“…where N is the number of participants ( 84 Furthermore, a specific section included in the related technical note (TN) describes how the responses from the Laboratory and Online questionnaires are reliable and comparable [24]. The TN focuses on performing the first online questionnaire (namely Online 1 on the TN), which involved 16 of the same Laboratory participants (the test was run after three weeks to ensure that participants would not be biased) [24]. Afterwards, the statistical reliability of the sample is analysed to check any significant influence of the different headset set up on the same participants' response to the auditory perception questionnaire.…”