Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Naturalness influences the perceived usability and pleasantness of an interface’s sonic feedback

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the influence of the naturalness of a sonic feedback on the perceived usability and pleasantness of the sounds used in a human-computer interface. The interface was the keyboard of an Automatic Teller Machine. The naturalness of the feedback was manipulated by using different kinds of relationship between a keystroke and its sonic feedback: causal, iconic, and arbitrary. Users were required to rate the naturalness, usability, and pleasantness of the sounds before and after manipulating the interface. Two kinds of interfaces were used: a normally functioning and a defective interface. The results indicated that the different relationships resulted in different levels of naturalness: causal mappings resulted in sounds perceived as natural, and arbitrary mappings in sounds perceived as non-natural, regardless of whether the sounds were recorded or synthesized. Before the subjects manipulated the interface, they rated the natural sounds as more pleasant and useful than the non-natural sounds. Manipulating the interface exaggerated these judgments for the causal and arbitrary mappings. The feedback sounds ruled by an iconic relationship between the user’s gesture and the resulting sounds were overall positively rated, but were sensitive to a potential contamination by the negative feelings created by a defective interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that using a natural or causal relationship may have its own drawbacks—e.g. users having an overly deterministic vision of the feedback model based on prior expectations from the “natural” situation at play.

  2. A discrete feedback occurs for a finite and short amount of time as the result of a user’s action (think of the beeps of a microwave oven); on the contrary, a continuos feedback follows the dynamics of a gesture sustained by the user. The sound produced by a musician bowing a string is a typical example of a continuous interaction.

  3. Note that this interface was only developed for the sake of the experiment. We do not advise to use such an interface in a real ATM.

  4. http://www.sound-ideas.com/6000.html.

  5. We used the cross-synthesis module for Max/MSP developed at Ircam http://imtr.ircam.fr/imtr/Max/MSP_externals.

References

  1. Blattner MM, Sumikawa DA, Greenberg RM (1989) Earcons and icons: their structure and common design principles. Hum-Comput Interact 4:11–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edworthy J, Loxley S, Dennis I (1991) Improving auditory warning design: relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Hum Factors 33(2):205–231

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eriksson M, Bresin R (2010) Improving running mechanisms by use of interactive sonification. In: Proceedings of the 3rd interactive sonification workshop, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fastl H (1997) The psychoacoustics of sound-quality evaluation. Acust United Acta Acust 83:754–764

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fernström M, Brazil E, Bannon L (2005) HCI design and interactive sonification for fingers and ears. IEEE Multimed 12(2):36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fröhlich B, Barrass S, Zehner B, Plate J, Göbel M (1999) Exploring geo-scientific data in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on visualization (VIS99), San Fransisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gaver WW (1986) Auditory icons: using sound in computer interfaces. Hum-Comput Interact 2(2):167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gaver WW (1989) The sonic finder: an interface that use auditory icons. Hum-Comput Interact 4:67–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaver WW (1994) Using and creating auditory icons. In: Kramer G (ed) Auditory display: sonification, audification and auditory interfaces. Westview Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grassi M, Casco C (2010) Audiovisual bounce-inducing effect: when sound congruence affects grouping in vision. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(2):378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guski R, Troje N (2003) Audiovisual phenomenal causality. Percept Psychophys 65(5):789–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guski R, Felscher-Suhr I, Schuemer R (1999) The concept of noise annoyance: how international experts see it. J Sound Vib 223(4):513–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hermann T (2008) Taxonomy and definitions for sonification and auditory display. In: Susini P, Warusfel O (eds) Proceedings 14th international conference on auditory display (ICAD 2008). Institut de Recherche et de Coordination Acoustique Musique, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hermann T, Bovermann T, Riedenklau E, Ritter H (2007) Tangible computing for interactive sonification of multivariate data. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on interactive sonification, York, UK

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hermann T, Hunt A (2005) An introduction to interactive sonification. IEEE Multimed 12(2):20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jekosch U (1999) Meaning in the context of sound quality assessment. Acust United Acta Acust 85:681–684

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lemaitre G, Houix O, Misdariis N, Susini P (2010) Listener expertise and sound identification influence the categorization of environmental sounds. J Exp Psychol, Appl 16(1):16–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lemaitre G, Houix O, Susini P, Visell Y, Franinović K (2012) Emotions are influenced by auditory feedback from a computationally augmented artifact. Trans Affect Comput (in press)

  19. Lemaitre G, Houix O, Visell Y, Franinović K, Misdariis N, Susini P (2009) Toward the design and evaluation of continuous sound in tangible interfaces: the Spinotron. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 67:976–993 special issue on Sonic Interaction Design

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McIntyre J, Zago M, Berthoz A, Lacquaniti F (2002) Does the brain model Newton’s laws? Nat Neurosci 4:693–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Patterson RD, Edworthy J, Shailer MJ, Lower M, Wheeler P (1986) Alarm sounds for medical equipment in intensive care areas and operating theatres. Institute of Sound and Vibration Research Report No. AC598, Southampton, UK

  22. Rath M, Rocchesso D (2005) Continuous sonic feedback from a rolling ball. IEEE Multimed 12(2):60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rath M, Schleicher DR (2008) On the relevance of auditory feedback for quality of control in a balancing task. Acta Acust United Acust 94:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roads C, Strawn J (eds) (1987) Foundations of computer music. The MIT Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-262-68051-3

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rocchesso D, Polotti P (2008) Designing continuous multisensory interaction. In: Contribution to the SID workshop, CHI, Florence, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schaffert N, Mattes K, Effenberg AO (2010) Listening to the boat motion: acoustic information for elite rowers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Interactive sonification workshop, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  27. Scherer KR, Dan ES, Flykt A (2006) What determines a feeling’s position in affective space? A case for appraisal. Cogn Emot 20(1):92–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stanton NA, Edworthy J (eds) (1999) Human factors in auditory warnings. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tractinsky N, Katz A, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13:127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zwicker E, Fastl H (1990) Psychoacoustics facts and models. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCAM, Paris, France

    Patrick Susini, Nicolas Misdariis, Guillaume Lemaitre & Olivier Houix

Authors
  1. Patrick Susini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Misdariis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guillaume Lemaitre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olivier Houix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Susini.

Additional information

G. Lemaitre is now at the University IUAV of Venice, Italy, research unit interactions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Susini, P., Misdariis, N., Lemaitre, G. et al. Naturalness influences the perceived usability and pleasantness of an interface’s sonic feedback. J Multimodal User Interfaces 5, 175–186 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-011-0086-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-011-0086-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation