Synth Science

Evidence map

Reverb: what the evidence base looks like

10 publications, 0 of them trials and 0 syntheses. This page describes the shape of that literature rather than summarising its conclusions.

Updated 3 min read 10 citations

What the evidence on reverb is made of Of 10 publications on this topic, the breakdown by study type: 10 other. 10other (10)
10 publications, by study type. Volume is not strength — the same count can be a settled question or a pile of commentary, and which one it is depends almost entirely on this breakdown. Harvested from PubMed and Crossref; publication type as recorded by the source.

What this literature is made of

A reasonable volume of literature, but weighted towards reviews and observational work rather than trials. That is enough to describe a phenomenon and rarely enough to establish that an intervention works.

The distinction that matters most is between synthesis and primary research. A meta-analysis pools trials and is the closest thing to a settled answer a field produces. A narrative review is one group's reading of the same material and can be selective without being dishonest. Counting them together, which most citation counts do, obscures exactly the thing you want to know.

When the reverb literature was published Publication years for the 10 papers on this topic, grouped into bands from before 2015 through to 2023 onwards. 2023 onwards5 papers2015-20193 papers2020-20221 papersBefore 20151 papers
Still active. The most recent paper here is from 2026, so this is a field where an answer written today may not hold for long. Publication years as recorded by PubMed and Crossref.

How this page is built

Everything above is computed from the citations this site harvested from PubMed and Crossref, not written by hand. When the weekly harvest finds a new paper on this topic, these counts change and the characterisation changes with them. That is the point: a hand-written claim about how strong an evidence base is starts decaying the day it is written.

Publication type is taken as the source records it. That is imperfect — journals label inconsistently, and a paper indexed as a "review" may be a systematic one — so treat the bands as approximate. They are accurate enough to distinguish a trial literature from a commentary literature, which is the distinction that matters.

The strongest work on this topic

Ordered by study design first, then recency. The full set is listed in the references below.

  1. Perceptual effects of modified late reverberation and reverberation time in auditory augmented reality in two rooms — Schneiderwind C, De Sena E, Neidhardt A, 2026, journal article
  2. Reverberation Time Estimation Algorithm Accuracy — Prodeus A, Naida A, 2025, journal article
  3. A Novel Artificial-Intelligence-Based Reverberation-Reduction Algorithm for Cochlear Implants Enhances Speech Intelligibility and User Experience — Langerak N, Stronks H, van Marrewijk E et al., 2025, journal article
  4. Measurement of Reverberation Time Using a Two-stage Algorithm — Prodeus A, Naida A, 2024, journal article
  5. Perceptual Similarities between Artificial Reverberation Algorithms and Real Reverberation — Mi H, Kearney G, Daffern H, 2023, journal article
  6. Perceptual analysis of directional late reverberation — Alary B, Massé P, Schlecht S et al., 2021, journal article
  7. Binaural perceptual weighting of reverberation level in normal hearing listeners — Ellis G, Zahorik P, 2018, journal article
  8. Real rooms vs. artificial reverberation: An evaluation of actual source audio vs. artificial ambience in the rear height channels of immersive audio systems — King R, Leonard B, Howie W, 2016, journal article
  9. Perceptual thresholds for non-ideal diffuse field reverberation — Romblom D, Guastavino C, Depalle P, 2016, journal article
  10. Perceptual compensation for effects of reverberation in isolated test-words — Watkins A, Raimond A, 2012, journal article
How much research is there on reverb?
10 publications are indexed here, of which 0 are trials and 0 are syntheses.
Does more research mean a stronger conclusion?
No. Composition matters more than volume — five randomised trials support a claim far better than fifty commentaries, and citation counts do not distinguish between them.
How current is this?
The most recent paper indexed here is from 2026. The set is refreshed weekly from PubMed and Crossref.
Why does this page not tell me the answer?
Because summarising a literature into a conclusion requires reading it, and doing that automatically is how confident nonsense gets published. This page tells you how much weight a conclusion could bear; the articles on this site do the interpreting.

References

Every citation below links to the original peer-reviewed record on PubMed or via DOI. Nothing here is a substitute for medical advice.

  1. Perceptual effects of modified late reverberation and reverberation time in auditory augmented reality in two rooms Schneiderwind C, De Sena E, Neidhardt A · Acta Acustica · 2026 · Journal article DOI
  2. A Novel Artificial-Intelligence-Based Reverberation-Reduction Algorithm for Cochlear Implants Enhances Speech Intelligibility and User Experience Langerak N, Stronks H, van Marrewijk E, et al. · Ear & Hearing · 2025 · Journal article DOI
  3. Reverberation Time Estimation Algorithm Accuracy Prodeus A, Naida A · Electronics and Control Systems · 2025 · Journal article DOI
  4. Measurement of Reverberation Time Using a Two-stage Algorithm Prodeus A, Naida A · Electronics and Control Systems · 2024 · Journal article DOI
  5. Perceptual Similarities between Artificial Reverberation Algorithms and Real Reverberation Mi H, Kearney G, Daffern H · Applied Sciences · 2023 · Journal article DOI
  6. Perceptual analysis of directional late reverberation Alary B, Massé P, Schlecht S, et al. · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021 · Journal article DOI
  7. Binaural perceptual weighting of reverberation level in normal hearing listeners Ellis G, Zahorik P · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018 · Journal article DOI
  8. Perceptual thresholds for non-ideal diffuse field reverberation Romblom D, Guastavino C, Depalle P · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016 · Journal article DOI
  9. Real rooms vs. artificial reverberation: An evaluation of actual source audio vs. artificial ambience in the rear height channels of immersive audio systems King R, Leonard B, Howie W · Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016 · Journal article DOI
  10. Perceptual compensation for effects of reverberation in isolated test-words Watkins A, Raimond A · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012 · Journal article DOI