skip to main content
research-article

Overview of auditory representations in human-machine interfaces

Published:27 December 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In recent years, a large number of research projects have focused on the use of auditory representations in a broadened scope of application scenarios. Results in such projects have shown that auditory elements can effectively complement other modalities not only in the traditional desktop computer environment but also in virtual and augmented reality, mobile platforms, and other kinds of novel computing environments. The successful use of auditory representations in this growing number of application scenarios has in turn prompted researchers to rediscover the more basic auditory representations and extend them in various directions. The goal of this article is to survey both classical auditory representations (e.g., auditory icons and earcons) and those auditory representations that have been created as extensions to earlier approaches, including speech-based sounds (e.g., spearcons and spindex representations), emotionally grounded sounds (e.g., auditory emoticons and spemoticons), and various other sound types used to provide sonifications in practical scenarios. The article concludes by outlining the latest trends in auditory interface design and providing examples of these trends.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Absar, R. and Guastavino, C. 2008. Usability of non-speech sounds in user interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando, B. 2008. A smart multisensor approach to assist blind people in specific urban navigation tasks. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 16, 6, 592--594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ando, B. and Graziani, S. 2009. Multisensor strategies to assist blind people: A clear-path indicator. IEEE Trans. Instr. Measurement 58, 8, 2488--2494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ballas, J. A. 1993. Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds. J. Exp. Psychol. Human 19, 2, 250--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Barrass, S. 1996a. TaDa! Demonstrations of auditory information design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display, 6 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrass, S. 1996b. EarBenders: Using stories about listening to design auditory interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st Asia-Pacific Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (APCHI’96). 525--538.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrass, S. 1998. Auditory information design. Ph.D. thesis. Australian National University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Basta, D., Singbartl, F., Todt, I., Clarke, A., and Ernst, A. 2008. Vestibular rehabilitation by auditory feedback in otolith disorders. Gait Posture 28, 3, 397--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Begault, D. R., Wenzel, E., and Anderson, M. 2001. Direct comparison of the impact of head tracking reverberation, and individualized head-related transfer functions on the spatial perception of a virtual speech source. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 49, 10, 904--917.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Bertin, J. 1981. Graphics and Graphic Information Processing. Walter de Gruyter and Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bezzi, M., Depoli, G., and Rocchesso, D. 1999. Sound authoring tools for future multimedia systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems. 512--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Blattner, M. M., Sumikawa, D. A., and Greenberg, R. M. 1989. Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 1, 11--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Blauert, J. 1983. Spatial Hearing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonebright, T. and Nees, M. 2007. Memory for auditory icons and earcons with localization cues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 419--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourbakis, N. 2008. Sensing surrounding 3-D space for navigation of the blind. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 27, 1, 49--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Bovermann, T., Hermann, T., and Ritter, H. 2006. Tangible data scanning sonification model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Bovermann, T. 2009. Tangible auditory interfaces: Combining auditory displays and tangible interfaces. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bielefeld.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Boyd, L. H., Boyd, W. L., and Vanderheiden, G. C. 1990. The graphical user interface: Crisis, danger and opportunity. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 48, 10, 496--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Brewster, S. 1994. Providing a structured method for integrating non-speech audio into human-computer interfaces. Ph.D. thesis. University of York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Brewster, S., Wright, P., and Edwards, A. 1995. Parallel earcons: Reducing the length of audio messages. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. St. 43, 2, 153--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Brewster, S. 1998. Using non-speech sounds to provide naviation cues. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 5, 2, 224--259. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Brock, D., Ballas, J. A., and McFarlane, D. 2005. Encoding urgency in legacy audio alerting systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Auditory Display. Limerick, Ireland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Bussemakers, M. P. and de Haan, A. 2000. When it sounds like a duck and it looks like a dog: Auditory icons vs. earcons in multimedia environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 184--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Capelle, C., Trullemans, C., Arno, P., and Veraart, C. 1998. A real-time experimental prototype for enhancement of vision rehabilitation using auditory system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 45, 10, 1279--1293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Cardin, S., Thalmann, D., and Vexo, F. 2007. A wearable system for mobility improvement of visually impaired people. Vis. Comput. 23, 2, 109--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Carello, C., Anderson, K. L., and Kunkler-Peck, A. J. 1998. Perception of object length by sound. Psych. Sci. 9, 3, 211--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Cheng, C. I. and Wakefield, G. H. 2001. Introduction to head-related transfer functions (HRTFs): Representations of HRTFs in time, frequency, and space. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 49, 4, 231--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Crispien, K. and Petrie, H. 1993. Providing access to GUI's using multimedia system—based on spatial audio representation. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 95th Convention Preprint.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Csapó, A. and Baranyi, P. 2011. Perceptual interpolation and open-ended exploration of auditory icons and earcons. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Csapó, A. and Baranyi, P. 2012. The spiral discovery method: An interpretable tuning model for CogInfoCom channels. JACIII 16, 2, 358--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Dakopoulos, D. and Bourbakis, N. G. 2010. Wearable obstacle avoidance electronic travel aids for blind: A survey. IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy. C 40, 1, 25--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Debnath, N., Hailani, Z. A., Jamaludin, S., and Aljunid, S. A. K. 2001. An electronically guided walking stick for the blind. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual EMBS International Conference. 1377--1379.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Dingler, T., Lindsay, J., and Walker, B. N. 2008. Learnability of sound cues for environmental features: Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dobrucki, A., Plaskota, P., Pruchnicki, P., Pec, M., Bujacz, M., and Strumillo, P. 2010. Measurement system for personalized head-related transfer functions and its verification by virtual source localization trials with visually impaired and sighted individuals. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 58, 9, 724--738.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Dozza, M., Chiari, L., and Horak, F. B. 2004. A portable audio-biofeedback system to improve postural control. In Proceedings of the IEEE Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 4799--4802.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Ebling, M. 2009. Virtual senses. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 8, 4, 4--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Edworthy, J. and Hards, R. 1999. Learning auditory warnings: The effects of sound type, verbal labelling and imagery on the identification of alarm sounds. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 24, 603--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Edworthy, J., Loxley, S., and Dennis, I. 1991. Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Hum. Factors 33, 2, 205--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Fagerlonn, J. and Alm, H. 2010. Auditory signs to support traffic awareness. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 4, 4, 262--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Fernstrom, M. and Brazil, E. 2004. Human-computer interaction design based on interactive sonification—hearing actions or instruments/agents. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Interactive Sonification.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Fish, R. M. 1976. An audio display for the blind. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 23, 2, 144--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Frauenberger, C. and Stockman, T. 2009. Auditory display design—an investigation of a design pattern approach. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. St. 67, 11, 907--922. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Frohlich, P. and Hammer, F. 2004. Expressive text-to-speech: A user-centred approach to sound design in voice-enabled mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Sound Design. 4 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gaver, W. W. 1986. Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, 2, 167--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Gaver, W. W. 1988. Everyday listening and auditory icons. Ph.D. thesis. University of California. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Gaver, W. W. 1989. The SonicFinder, a prototype interface that uses auditory icons. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 67--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Gaver, W. W. 1993. Synthesizing auditory icons. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Series. 228--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Gaver, W. W. 1991. Sound support for collaboration. In Proceedings of ECSCW'91, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 293--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Gaver, W. W. 1997. Auditory interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 67--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Ghez, C., Rikakis, T., du Bois, R. L., and Cook, P. R. 2000. An auditory display system for aiding interjoint coordination. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Godbout, A. and Boyd, J. E. 2010. Corrective sonic feedback for speed skating: A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 23--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. González, J., Yu, W., and Arieta, A. H. 2010. Multichannel audio biofeedback for dynamical coupling between prosthetic hands and their users. Ind. Robot 37, 2, 148--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Graham, R. 1999. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: Evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics 42, 9, 1233--1248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. GW Micro. Window-Eyes. http://www.gwmicro.com/Window-Eyes/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Gygi, B. 2004. Studying environmental sounds the Watson way. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 115, 5, 2574.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Gygi, B. and Shafiro, V. 2009. From signal to substance and back: Insights from environmental sound research to auditory display design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 240--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R., and Watson, C. S. 2004. Spectral-temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 115, 3, 1252--1265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Haas, E. C. and Edworthy, J. 1999. The perceived urgency and detection time of multitone auditory signals. In N. A. Stanton and J. Edworthy, Eds., Human Factors in Auditory Warnings. Gower Technical Press, 129--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Harness, S. J., Pugh, K., Sherkat, N., and Whitrow, R. J. 1993. Enabling the use of Windows environment by the blind and partially sighted. In Proceedings of the IEEE Colloquium on Information Access for People with Disability. 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Hearst, M. 1997. Dissonance on audio interfaces. IEEE Expert 12, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Heller, L. M. and Wolf, L. 2002. When sound effects are better than the real thing. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 111, 5, 2339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Hellier, E. J., Edworthy, J., and Dennis, I. 1993. Improving auditory warning design: Quantifying and predicting the effects of different warning parameters on perceived urgency. Hum. Factors 35, 4, 693--706.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Hermann, T. 2002. Sonification for exploratory data analysis. Ph.D. thesis. Bielefeld University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Hermann, T. and Hunt, A. 2005. An introduction to interactive aonification. IEEE Multimedia 12, 2, 20--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Hermann, T. and Ritter, H. 1999. Listen to your data: Model based sonification for data analysis. In G. E. Lasker, Ed., Advances in Intelligent Computing and Multimedia Systems. 189--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Hermann, T. and Zehe, S. 2011. Sonified aerobics—interactive sonification of coordinated body movements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Hermann, T., Hunt, A., and Neuhoff, J. G. (Eds.). 2011. The Sonification Handbook. Logos Publishing House, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Hersh, M. and Johnson, M. (Eds.). 2008. Assistive Technology for Visually Impaired and Blind People. Springer, 51--58, 289--299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Hunt, A. and Hermann, T. 2004. The importance of interaction in sonification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Jameson, B. and Manduchi, R. 2010. Watch your head: A wearable collision warning system for the blind. In Proceedings of IEEE Sensors. 1922--1927.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Jeon, M. and Walker, B. 2009. Spindex: Accelerated initial speech sounds improve navigation performance in auditory menus. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 53, 17, 1081--1085.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Jeon, M. and Walker, B. 2011. Spindex (speech index) improves auditory menu acceptance and navigation performance. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 3, 3, 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Jylha, A. and Erkut, C. 2011. Auditory feedback in an interactive rhythmic tutoring system. In Proceedings of the 6th Audio Mostly Conference: A Conference on Interaction with Sound. 109--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Kahol, K., Tripathi, P., Panchanathan, S., and Goldberg, M. 2004. Formalizing cognitive and motor strategy of haptic exploratory movements of individuals who are blind. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and Their Applications. 25--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Kay, L. 1973. The design and evaluation of a sensory aid to enhance spatial perception of the blind. Electrical Eng. Report 21, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Kay, L. 1984. Electronic aids for blind persons: An interdisciplinary subject. IEEE Proc. A, Phys. Sci. Meas. Instrum. Manage. Educ., Rev. 131, 7, 559--576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Kim, J. K. and Zatorre, R. J. 2008. Generalized learning of visual-to-auditory substitution in sighted individuals. Brain Res. 1242, 263--275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Kramer, G. 1993. Auditory Display: Sonification, Audification and Auditory Interfaces. Perseus Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Kummer, N., Kadish, D., Dulic, A., and Najjaran, H. 2012. The empathy machine. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC’12). 2265--2271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Kunkler-Peck, A. J. and Turvey, M. T. 2000. Hearing shape. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 1, 279--294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Lahav, O., Schloerb, D. W., Kumar, S., and Srinivasan, M. A. 2008. BlindAid: A learning environment for enabling people who are blind to explore and navigate through unknown real spaces. In Proceedings of the Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation. Vancouver, Canada, 193--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Legroux, S., Manzolli, J., and Verschure, P. 2007. Interactive sonification of the spatial behavior of human and synthetic characters in a mixed-reality environment. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence. 27--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Leplatre, G. and Brewster, S. 1998. An investigation of using music to provide navigation cues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Liard, C. and Beghdadi, A. 2001. An audiodisplay tool for visually impaired people: The sound screen system. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Signal Processing and Its Applications. 198--201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Loomis, J. M., Marston, J. R., Golledge, R. G., and Klatzky, R. L. 2005. Personal guidance system for people with visual impairment: A comparison of spatial displays for route guidance. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 99, 219--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. Lopez, M. J. and Pauletto, S. 2009. The design of an audio film for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 210--216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. López, J. J., Cobos, M., and Pueo, B. 2010. Elevation in wave-field synthesis using HRTF cues. Acta Acust. United Ac. 96, 2, 340--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Massimino, M. 1992. Sensory substitution for force feedback in space teleoperation. Ph.D. thesis. MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Massimino, M. 1995. Improved force perception through sensory substitution. Control Eng. Pract. 3, 2, 215--222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. McGee-Lennon, M. R. and Brewster, S. 2011. Reminders that make sense: Designing multimodal notifications for the home. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 495--501.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. McGee-Lennon, M. R., Wolters, M. K., McLachlan, R., Brewster, S., and Hall, C. 2011. Name that tune: Musicons as reminders in the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). 2803--2806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. McGookin, D. and Brewster, S. 2004. Understanding concurrent earcons: Applying auditory scene analysis principles to concurrent earcon recognition. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 1, 2, 130--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. McKiel, F. 1992. Audio-enabled graphical user interface for the blind or visually impaired. In Proceedings of the Johns Hopkins National Search for Computing Applications to Assist Persons with Disabilities. 185--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  94. McLachlan, R., McGee-Lennon, M., and Brewster, S. 2012. The sound of musicons: Investigating the design of musically derived audio cues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 148--155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Meijer, P. 1992. An experimental system for auditory image representations. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 39, 2, 112--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. Moller, H. 1992. Fundamentals of binaural technology. Appl. Acoust. 36, 171--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. Moller, H., Sorensen, M. F., Hammershoi, D., and Jensen, C. B. 1995. Head-related transfer functions of human subjects. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 43, 5, 300--321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Morrissette, D. L., Goodrich, G. L., and Hennessey, J. J. 1981. A follow-up study of the Mowat Sensor's applications, frequency of use, and maintenance reliability. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 75, 211--247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Murphy, E. F. 1971. The VA-Bionic laser cane for the blind. In National Research Council (Ed.), Evaluation of Sensory Aids for the Visually Handicapped. National Academy of Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Mustonen, M.-S. 2008. A review-based conceptual analysis of auditory signs and their design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Mynatt, E. D. 1997. Transforming graphical interfaces into auditory interfaces for blind users. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12, 1, 7--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Nees, M. A. and Walker, B. N. 2007. Listener, task, and auditory graph: Toward a conceptual model of auditory graph comprehension. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 266--273.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Németh, G., Olaszy, G., and Csapó, T. G. 2011. Spemoticons: Text-to-speech based emotional auditory cues. International Conference on Auditory Display (keynote lecture).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. O’Brien, J. F., Shen, C., and Gatchalian, C. M. 2002. Synthesizing sounds from rigid-body simulations. In Proceedings of the ACM Siggraph /Eurohaptics Symposium on Computer Animation. 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. Palladino, D. K. and Walker, B. N. 2007. Learning rates for auditory menus enhanced with spearcons versus earcons. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 6 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Parseihian, G. and Katz, B. F. G. 2012. Morphocons: A new sonification concept based on morphological earcons. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 60, 6, 409--418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Patterson, R. D. 1982. Guidelines for auditory warning systems on civil aircraft. CAA paper 82017. London Civil Aviation Authority.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Patterson, R. D. 1989. Guidelines for the design of auditory warning sounds. Proc. Inst. Acoust. 11, 5, 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. Patterson, R. D. and Mayfield, T. F. 1990. Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 327, 1241, 485--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Petrie, H. and Morley, S. 1998. The use of non-speech sounds in non-visual interfaces to the MS Windows GUI for blind computer users. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  111. Pressey, N. 1977. Mowat sensor. Focus 3, 35--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Rocchesso, D., Bresin, R., and Fernstrom, M. 2003. Sounding objects. IEEE Multimedia 10, 2, 42--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  113. Schafer, R. M. 1977. The Tuning of the World. McClelland and Stewart Limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traite des objects musicaux. Editions du Seuil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Schaffert, N., Gehret, R., and Mattes, K. 2012. Modeling the rowing stroke cycle acoustically. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 60, 7/8, 551--560.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. Schaffert, N., Mattes, K., and Effenberg, A. O. 2010. A sound design for acoustic feedback in elite sports. In S. Ystad, M. Aramaki, R. Kronland-Martinet, and K. Jensen, Eds., Auditory Display (CMMR/ICAD 2009 post proceedings ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 5954, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 143--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. Schaffert, N., Mattes, K., and Effenberg, A. O. 2011. An investigation of online acoustic information for elite rowers in on-water training conditions. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 6, 2, 392--405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. Sikora, C., Roberts, L., and Murray, L. T. 1995. Musical vs. real-world feedback signals. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 220--221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Singh, D. 2010. Hybrid auditory based interaction framework for driver assistance system. J. Comput. Sci. 6, 12, 1499--1504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  120. Van den Doel, K., Kry, P. G., and Pai, D. K. 2001. FoleyAutomatic: Physically-based sound effects for interactive simulation and animation. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH’01). 537--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  121. Ventura, L. C. L. and Fernandes, P. R. 2011. Remote guide for guiding the visually Impaired. In Proceedings of the 2011 ISSNIP Biosignals and Biorobotics Conference (BRC’11). 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. Walker, B. N., Nance, A., and Lindsay, J. 2006. Spearcons: Speech-based earcons improve navigation performance in auditory menus. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 63--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Walker, B. N. and Lindsay, J. 2006. Navigation performance with a virtual auditory display: Effects of beacon sound, capture radius, and practice. Hum. Factors 48, 2, 265--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  124. Wenzel, E. 1992. Localization in virtual acoustic displays. Presence 1, 1, 80--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  125. Wenzel, E. M., Arruda, M., Kistler, D. J., and Wightman F. L. 1994. Localization using nonindividualized head-related transfer functions. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 94, 1, 111--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  126. Wersényi, G. 2003. Localization in a HRTF-based minimum audible angle listening test on a 2D sound screen for GUIB applications. Audio Engineering Society Convention Preprint Paper, No. 5902, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  127. Wersényi, G. 2007a. Localization in a HRTF-based minimum-audible-angle listening test for GUIB applications. EJTA 1, 1--16. Available at http://www.ejta.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Wersényi, G. 2007b. Localization in a HRTF-based virtual audio synthesis using additional high-pass and low-pass filtering of sound sources. J. Acoust. Sci. Technol. Jpn. 28, 4, 244--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  129. Wersényi, G. 2008. Evaluation of user habits for creating auditory representations of different software applications for blind persons. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  130. Wersényi, G. 2009a. Evaluation of auditory representations for selected applications of a graphical user interface. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. 41--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. Wersényi, G. 2009b. Effect of emulated head-tracking for reducing localization errors in virtual audio simulation. IEEE Audio, Speech, Language Process. 17, 2, 247--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  132. Wersényi, G. 2010. Auditory representations of a graphical user interface for a better human-computer interaction. In S. Ystad, M. Aramaki, R. Kronland-Martinet, and K. Jensen, Eds., Auditory Display (CMMR/ICAD 2009 post proceedings ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 5954. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 80--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  133. Wersényi, G. 2012. Virtual localization by blind persons. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 60, 7/8, 568--579.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  134. Wilson, J., Walker, B. N., Lindsay, J., Cambias, C., and Dellaert, F. 2007. SWAN: System for Wearable Audio Navigation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  135. W3: http://www.w3.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Overview of auditory representations in human-machine interfaces

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Susan Loretta Fowler

    The title of this paper is accurate: It is an overview of the various categories of sounds developers have created to provide information and entertainment to software users. The authors list the various types of sounds that are currently used in software for alerts and navigation, and in virtual reality environments. There are ten types of sounds, ranging from more or less natural to electronically modified or enhanced. Auditory icons are short sounds with meaningful connections to the physical events they represent, such as the sound of a dot matrix printer to indicate printing. Earcons are abstract, message-like sounds, the meanings of which users must learn, such as error-message beeps. Spearcons, or speech earcons, include bits of speech that are sped up so much that they are no longer recognizable as words but still retain their original pitches. Researchers find that spearcons are especially helpful in audio navigation of menu structures. Spindices are speech indexes, a version of the spearcon that uses sped-up initial sounds to indicate the starting letter of a menu item (similar to underlined keystroke accelerators on menus) or alphabetical lists. Auditory emoticons are audible "smileys," based on laughter, chuckling, crying, or other expressions of emotion. Spemoticons, like spearcons, use text-to-speech instead of natural speech, but in this case, they represent emotional or intentional states, just as emoticons do. Musicons are extremely brief samples of well-known music, used as audible reminders. Morphocons, or morphological earcons, include earcons and earcon families that can be customized to suit the individual taste of the user. Alerts and warnings are signals that are mapped onto sounds to convey varying levels of urgency. Sonifications are used for navigation. They include sounds such as navigation beacons (earcon-like sounds), object sounds (auditory icons associated with particular objects), and location information and announcements created as brief prerecorded speech samples. In section 4.1, the authors compare design approaches in various environments. Audio in traditional graphical user interface (GUI) environments is familiar to us all. Somewhat newer is audio used to help blind or partially sighted individuals parse 2D and 3D environments using spatially distributed sound, or 3D sound interfaces used in games and virtual environments. Sonifications are important in assistive technologies-for example, as feedback in telemanipulation and telepresence situations, to help rehabilitation patients learn correct limb and joint movements, and to help train athletes to achieve better posture and movements. The authors also categorize sonifications as conceptual and interactive. They define "conceptual" as providing an answer to a question-for example, "did I enter the right information__?__"-and they define "interactive" as representing a pattern of "awareness, interaction, multimodal rechecking, and confirmation." Using sounds to navigate a space would be a good example of interactive use. All in all, the paper is a good summary of sonification in 2013, although the authors don't spend much time on virtual environments, despite mentioning virtual audio displays (VADs) and soundscapes at the beginning of the paper. Unfortunately, the authors provide no links to sample sounds in the paper or in the references. There is supposed to be an appendix on "supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files," but the file is an empty PDF. It is very difficult to imagine all of these sounds in context. It's like reading a cookbook for a cuisine you've never tasted. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    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 Computing Surveys
      ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 46, Issue 2
      November 2013
      483 pages
      ISSN:0360-0300
      EISSN:1557-7341
      DOI:10.1145/2543581
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      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: 27 December 2013
      • Accepted: 1 March 2013
      • Revised: 1 November 2012
      • Received: 1 February 2012
      Published in csur Volume 46, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader