skip to main content
research-article

The Duration of an Auditory Icon Can Affect How the Listener Interprets Its Meaning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 July 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Initially introduced in the field of informatics, an auditory icon consists of a short sound that is present in everyday life, used to represent a specific event, object, function, or action. Auditory icons have been studied in various fields, and overall, compared to other types of auditory alarms, they can be very efficient in informing the listener about a situation or event. So far, auditory icons have been used with a wide range of durations, ranging from a few hundreds of milliseconds up to several seconds. Still little is known, however, about whether and how icon duration influences its interpretation. In the present study, we therefore asked listeners to rate 12 auditory icons, divided into four different sound categories (nonverbal human sounds, machine sounds, human activities, and animal vocalizations), in five different durations (200, 400, 800, 1,600, and 3,200 ms). They rated (1) how appropriately the icon sound itself represented the icon's referent and (2) how appropriately each duration of the icon sound represented the icon's referent. Overall, results demonstrate that the duration of the auditory icons in this stimulus set can directly affect how the icon represents the referent. Auditory icons in the test set characterized by human activities represented their referent most appropriately in a relatively shorter duration (400 or 800 ms). The majority of the auditory icons in the set consisting of machine sounds, nonverbal human sounds, and animal vocalizations, however, were considered as more appropriately representing their referent in longer durations (800 ms and 1,600 ms). Further systematic research is necessary to determine whether the duration effects shown here may generalize to other stimulus sets.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Arbernaut (pseud.). 2018. “Male laughter.” Free Sound, audio, 00:29:550. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/arbernaut/sounds/450528/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Ballas James A. and Howard James H. 1987. Interpreting the language of environmental sounds. Environ. Behav. 19, 1 (1987), 91114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Ballas James A.. 1993. Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perf. 19, 2 (1993), 250267. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Cabral João P. and Remijn Gerard B.. 2019. Auditory icons: Design and physical characteristics. Appl. Ergon. 78 (2019), 224239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Jacob Cohen. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, New York, NY. (1977).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Drotzruhn (pseud.). 2017. “Cough.” Free Sound, audio, 00:29:930. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/drotzruhn/sounds/405206/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Edworthy Judy R. and Elizabeth Hellier. 2006. Auditory warnings. In International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2nd ed. Waldemar Karwowski (Ed.). Taylor & Francis, London, 10261028.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Fabiani Monica, Kazmerski Victoria A., Cycowicz Yael M., and David Friedman. 1996. Naming norms for brief environmental sounds: Effects of age and dementia. Psychophysiology 33, 4 (1996), 462475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Garcia-Ruiz Miguel A., Edwards Arthur, Martin Miguel V. and Seoud Samir E.. 2008. Auditory display as a tool for teaching network intrusion detection. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 3, 2 (2008), 5962. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Stavros Garzonis, Simon Jones, Tim Jay, and Eamonn O'Neill. 2009. Auditory icon and earcon mobile service notifications: Intuitiveness, learnability, memorability and preference. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, 15131522. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Gaver William W.. 1986. Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2, 2 (1986), 167177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Gaver William W.. 1989. The sonicfinder: An interface that uses auditory icons. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 4, 1 (1989), 6794. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Gaver William W. 1993. What in the world do we hear?: An ecological approach to auditory event perception. J. Ecol. Psychol. 5, 1 (1993), 129. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Gibson James J.. 1976. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (2nd ed.). Psychology Press, Hillsdale, NJ. (1976).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Robert Graham. 1999. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: Evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics 42, 9 (1999), 12331248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Brian Gygi, Kidd Gary R. and Watson Charles S.. 2004. Spectral–temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 3 (2004), 12521265. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Benjamin Höferlin, Markus Höferlin, Michael Raschke, Gunther Heidemann, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2011. Interactive auditory display to support situational awareness in video surveillance. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Auditory Display. 156163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Sarah Isherwood and Denis McKeown. 2016. Semantic congruency of auditory warnings. Ergonomics. 60 7 (2016), 10141023. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] InspectorJ (pseud.). 2017. “Construction, jackhammer excavator.” Free Sound, audio, 00:16:767. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/InspectorJ/sounds/400991/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Jgrzinich (pseud.). 2013. “Frog Pond.” Free Sound, audio, 04:41:272. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/jgrzinich/sounds/199285/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Peter Keller and Catherine Stevens. 2004. Meaning from environmental sounds: types of signal-referent relations and their effect on recognizing auditory icons. J. Exp. Psychol: Appl. 10, 1 (2004), 312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] KieranKeegan (pseud.). 2018. “Lawnmower_idle_close.” Free Sound, audio, 00:30:912. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/KieranKeegan/sounds/431477/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Leung Ying Smith Sean K., Simon Parker, and Russell Martin. 1997. Learning and retention of auditory warnings. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. 129133. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/50748.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Marcell Borella Diane Michael M., Michael Greene, Elizabeth Kerr, and Summer Rogers. 2000. Confrontation naming of environmental sounds. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 22, 6 (2000), 830864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Michael Marcell, Maria Malatanos, Leahy Connie, and Cadie Comeaux. 2007. Identifying, rating, and remembering environmental sound events. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 3 (2007), 561569. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Matthews_sounds (pseud.). 2019. “Computer keyboard typing.” Free Sound, audio, 00:22:851. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/matthews_sounds/sounds/468973/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Denis McKeown and Sarah Isherwood. 2007. Mapping candidate within-vehicle auditory display to their references. Hum. Fact. 49, 3 (2007), 417428. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Denis McKeown, Sarah Isherwood, and Gareth Conway. 2010. Auditory displays as occasion setters. Hum. Fact. 52, 1 (2010), 5462. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Mynatt Elizabeth D.. 1994. Designing with auditory icons. In Proceedings of the Conference on Auditory Display, 109119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Mynatt Elizabeth D.. 1997. Transforming graphical interfaces into auditory interfaces for blind users. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 12, 1 (1997), 745. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Nees Helbein Benji Michael A., and Anna Porter. 2016. Speech auditory alerts promote memory for alerted events in a video-simulated self-driving car ride. Hum. Fact. 58, 3 (2016), 416426. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Nathan Perry, Catherine Stevens, Mark Wiggins, and Clare Howell. 2007. Cough once for danger: Icons versus abstract warnings as informative alerts in civil aviation. Hum. Fact. 49, 6 (2007), 10611071. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Radio_fragola_gorizia (pseud.). 2017. “Chimpanzee2.” Free Sound, audio, 00:13:804. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/Radio_fragola_gorizia/sounds/400084/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] RSilveira_88 (pseud.). 2014. “Applauses.” Free Sound, audio, 00:19:000. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/RSilveira_88/sounds/216158/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Stevens Brennan David Catherine J., Agnes Petocz, and Clare Howell. 2009. Designing informative warning signals: Effects of indicator type, modality, and task demand on recognition speed and accuracy. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 4 (2009), 8490. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Team Audacity. Audacity. Version 2.2.1. Personal computer. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.audacityteam.org/download/windows/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Turchinoa (pseud.). 2017. “Paper crumple.” Free Sound, audio, 00:03:552. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/turchinoa/sounds/408391/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Vataaa (pseud.). 2012. “Voice elephant.” Free Sound, audio, 00:07:367. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/vataaa/sounds/148873/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] VithorMoraes (pseud.). 2017. “Flipping pages.” Free Sound, audio, 00:07:616. Retrieved January 13, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/VithorMoraes/sounds/391350/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] VKProduktion (pseud.). 2016. “A printer printing out a photo—Printer: Canon iP7250.” Free Sound, audio, 01:03:167. Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://freesound.org/people/VKProduktion/sounds/344971/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Wang Min J., Li Yi C. and Fang Chen. 2012. How can we design 3D auditory interfaces which enhance traffic safety for chinese drivers? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 7783. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Winters John J.. 1998. An Investigation of Auditory Icons and Brake Response Times in a Commercial Truck-cab Environment. Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Xu Jie, G. Fang Zhi, H. Dong Dan, and Zhou Feng. 2010. An outdoor navigation aid system for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM’10). 24352439. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The Duration of an Auditory Icon Can Affect How the Listener Interprets Its Meaning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
        ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 19, Issue 2
        April 2022
        68 pages
        ISSN:1544-3558
        EISSN:1544-3965
        DOI:10.1145/3543997
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 July 2022
        • Online AM: 28 March 2022
        • Revised: 1 March 2022
        • Accepted: 1 March 2022
        • Received: 1 December 2020
        Published in tap Volume 19, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format