## 3 Results
### Soundscape Quality Assessment the Living Rooms  
For the perceptual data, a similar statistical approach with a non-parametric test was used, as for the equivalent sound levels and loudness, since data failed to meet the normality assumption. Soundscape assessments referred to a different time resolution of the observation sessions (i.e., 30-min slots from 07:00 a.m. to 07:00 p.m.), and five living rooms were covered, namely, VH1, SJ, LH1, SV1, and SP1. This single-day approach was also justified by the lack of difference experienced between different days in terms of objective parameters, as previously shown in Section 3.1.  
Firstly, in order to address research question (d), the Kruskal-Wallis H test was performed to determine if there were differences in overall soundscape quality scores (Q1, in Table 2), overall soundscape appropriateness scores (Q2, in Table 2), prominence of sound source types scores (each of the seven items of Q3, in Table 2) and soundscape attributes scores (each of the ten items of Q4, in Table 2) between the different time slots of the observation sessions: the groups from \"07:00\" to \"19:00\". Distributions of all the variables' scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The mean rank of all variables' scores was not statistically significantly different between groups (\(p>0.05\) for all tested variables).  
Another set of Kruskal-Wallis H tests was performed to address research question (e) and to assess the differences between the same variables with respect to the living rooms grouping factor. The distributions of all the variables' scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of the boxplots reported in Figures 13-15. The mean ranks of all the variables' scores were statistically significantly different between groups, as reported in Table 3. In particular, pairwise comparisons were performed for Q1 and Q2 using [PERSON]'s procedure [18] with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Adjusted \(p\)-values are presented. This post hoc analysis for Q1 revealed statistically significant differences in overall soundscape quality scores between: the SP1 (mean rank = 23.18) and SJ (mean rank = 71.00) groups (\(p<0.001\)); the SP1 and SV1 (mean rank = 70.93) groups (\(p<0.001\)); and the SP1 and VH1 (mean rank = 60.50) groups (\(p=0.004\)). Furthermore, the post hoc analysis also revealed statistically significant differences in overall soundscape quality scores  
Figure 12: Scatter-plot of the L\({}_{\text{Aeq-15 min}}\) scores vs. the Loudness\({}_{\text{-15 min}}\) scores (black line), compared with the theoretical formulation by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [17] (red dashed line).  
between: the LH1 (mean rank = 41.83) and SJ groups (\(p\) = 0.009); and the LH1 and the SV1 groups (\(p\) = 0.009). Likewise, the post hoc analysis for Q2 revealed statistically significant differences in overall soundscape appropriateness scores between: the SP1 (mean rank = 25.77) and SV1 (mean rank = 67.11) groups (\(p\) < 0.001); and the SP1 and SJ (mean rank = 78.09) groups (\(p\) < 0.001). Furthermore, the post hoc analysis also revealed statistically significant differences in overall soundscape appropriateness scores between: the LH1 (mean rank = 39.29) and SV1 groups (\(p\) = 0.016); and the LH1 and the SJ groups (\(p\) < 0.001).  
Figure 14: Distributions of Q3 scores for its seven items, sorted by living room.  
Figure 13: Distributions of Q1 and Q2 scores as a function of the living rooms.