## 4 Discussion
### Differences of Soundscape Quality  
For the perceptual information (i.e., soundscape data), a smaller dataset was available with respect to sound levels. No statistically significant differences between time slots in terms of any soundscape dimension were observed. Nevertheless, also in this case, differences between the living rooms emerged. As a general trend, the living room SP1 performed worse than others in terms of soundscape quality and appropriateness (i.e., Q1 and Q2), while SJ and SV1 performed slightly better. Nursing homes were shown to have statistically significantly different sound sources profiles, with different degrees of \"prominence\" of the source types (Q3). When considering the soundscape attributes (Q4), it can be observed that the living rooms LH1 and SP1 were related mostly to monotonous and uneventful soundscapes, while the nursing homes SJ and SV1 performed particularly well in terms of soundscape safety and intimacy, which are dimensions that proved to be extremely important for people with dementia [1; 6; 7]. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [20] showed that elderly people suffering from dementia are able to recollect the sounds that had once occupied very important parts of their lives. However, these sounds in themselves are not unusual sounds in their daily lives. This suggests the importance of soundscape design in daily life.  
Taken together, these results suggest that a nursing home's acoustic environment, which is rich and varied in terms of sound sources (like in the cases of VH1 and SJ), might result in better outcomes in terms of overall soundscape quality, while an acoustic environment, which is 'poor' in terms of sound sources prominence and variability (like in the case of SP1), even disregarding their meaning and information content, might not necessarily lead to a good soundscape quality (arguing about the point that \"the quieter, the better\" should not always be the first choice in soundscape management [12]).  
In soundscape studies, when data collection through questionnaires is included, several participants are usually involved at the same time so that individual responses can be averaged to provide an overall representation of the acoustic environment's perception. However, a different approach was used in this study. A single researcher (F.A.) was trained on the soundscape protocols and performed data collection alone. To some extent, this could imply that the soundscape assessment does not exactly reflect a \"general\" assessment achieved through the average of multiple participants, and it could potentially introduce a \"sample selection bias\" [21]. On the other hand, it definitely helps to rule out potential within-group participants effects and provide assessments that are \"internally consistent\" between contexts and situations. It is worth noting that, within the framework of this study, the (trained) researcher alone assessed the soundscape of the living rooms instead of having the residents appraise these variables themselves, which might not be feasible due to the cognitive condition of the residents. It is not possible to assume that the soundscape assessment of the researcher would be perfectly aligned to the actual experiences of the residents. However, this kind of observational method is increasingly used in soundscape studies in such facilities [1; 6; 7], with promising results. This methodological approach is also supported by an increasing trend in psychological research to use single-participant experimental designs (for an overview, see ref. [22]), as the potential to provide robust and repeatable empirical findings has been reported across a spectrum of different psychological and behavioural sciences [23]. This circumstance points to the need to further develop alternative methods (e.g., monitoring of physiological parameters) to collect data on the individual responses to the sound environments for people with special needs.