Consistency of magnitude estimations with conceptual data dimensions used for sonification

Abstract

SUMMARYIn two experiments listeners assessed how sounds represented data, as might be used in sonification. In Experiment 1, 209 undergraduates used magnitude estimation to define the relationship between three sound attributes (frequency, tempo, modulation index) and 10 data dimensions (size, temperature, pressure, velocity, number of dollars, urgency, proximity, attractiveness, danger, mass). Polarities and slopes (i.e. power function exponents) are reported and compared to predictions from the literature. In Experiment 2, 226 new participants demonstrated polarities and slopes are stable across a direct replication. Results show that listener expectations depend on both sound and data dimensions in use. While there are some unanimous expectations across listeners, there are also differences due to different mental models formed by participants, which may relate to listening experience.

Sonification design for complex work domains: Dimensions and distractors.

“…In these studies similar general patterns were found across the experiments, but the exact values for some dimensions differed. The values should therefore be used as general guidance rather than absolute until the studies have been replicated and the stability of the range of values has been established (Walker, 2007). The low numbers of participants in the experiments and therefore the potentially low statistical power reinforce the need to use the results as general guidance.…”

“…Users' expectations are important in determining the dimensions to be used and the polarity mapping used (Edworthy, Hellier, Aldrich, & Loxley, 2004;Guillaume, Pellieux, Chastres, & Drake, 2003;Walker, 2007). Cognitive factors such as expectancies and goals are also likely to be important.…”

“…The choice of auditory dimensions for carrying information depends both on the ability of users to perceive changes in the dimensions and on users' expectations of the meaning of changes in the dimensions and the data represented (Guillaume, Pellieux, Chastres, & Drake, 2003;Walker, 2007). The present studies examined the perceptual aspects of the dimensions.…”

“…Although a more principled approach to auditory display design is needed (Barrass, 1998;Kramer et al, 1999) and extensions of techniques such as Ecological Interface Design have been proposed (Anderson, 2005;Sanderson, Anderson, & Watson, 2000;Watson & Sanderson, 2004, 2007 very few reports address problems encountered when designing sonifications with many dimensions.…”

Evaluation of four models for the sonification of elite rowing

“…An example of identification test is given by Fernström et al [6]: a large collection of everyday sounds were assessed for identification, the results giving an idea of the potential success of given stimuli when used as metaphor sounds in an auditory display. Another type of offline evaluation was performed by Walker in [31]: sonification mappings (associations between sound attributes and data dimensions) were assessed through conceptual magnitude estimation, providing ideas about consistency, polarity and perceptual scale inherent to the sonification mappings. Online testing is often limited to after-use surveys and verbal protocols (e.g.…”