  Many subjective experiments have been performed to develop objective speech
intelligibility measures, but the novel coronavirus outbreak has made it very
difficult to conduct experiments in a laboratory. One solution is to perform
remote testing using crowdsourcing; however, because we cannot control the
listening conditions, it is unclear whether the results are entirely reliable.
In this study, we compared speech intelligibility scores obtained in remote and
laboratory experiments. The results showed that the mean and standard deviation
(SD) of the remote experiments' speech reception threshold (SRT) were higher
than those of the laboratory experiments. However, the variance in the SRTs
across the speech-enhancement conditions revealed similarities, implying that
remote testing results may be as useful as laboratory experiments to develop an
objective measure. We also show that the practice session scores correlate with
the SRT values. This is a priori information before performing the main tests
and would be useful for data screening to reduce the variability of the SRT
distribution.
