Design and Development of a Spanish Hearing Test for Speech in Noise (PAHRE)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the idea of the research is good, it suffers a lot of redundancy in all of its sections. It is unlogic at all to have an introduction of about 5 pages. The authors described lot of information and summarized different speech in noise test. This is not a review article. The methodology section is very lengthy, boring with justification of everything????
You MUST be more focused. You did a good work, so you MUST present it in a good manner
Author Response
The introduction has been halved, information has been reordered and redundancies have been avoided.
In the methodology section, the justification of each of the steps may be tedious, but the aim is that the work can be replicated if felt necessary and/or appropriate.
Reviewer 2 Report
You can find comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
- In the procedure section of phase 2 in the line 368 the following paragraph has been included: However, this period of time may not be sufficient to eliminate the memory of lexical items. It is assumed that these items not perceived in the sentences without the Lombard effect will be perceived as new in the presentation of the Lombard sentences. For this reason, the lists of sentences were presented in this order.
-
In line 297 has been included range 0-20 dB
- In figures 1, 2 and 3 the title of the vertical axis has been included.
- The values of the standard deviation have been included in Figure 4.
-
The term lists is used when referring to the set of the six sentences without Lombard effect and the six with Lombard effect. However, the term block refers to the set of a non-Lombard list and a Lombard list.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is better, however, authors must know the difference between review article and research article. There is a redundancy in all parts of the research.
