Comparison of spatial and temporal interaction techniques for 3D audio trajectory authoring

  • Justin D. MathewEmail author
  • Stéphane Huot
  • Brian F. G. Katz
Original Paper


With the popularity of immersive media, developing usable tools for content development is important for the production process. In the context of 3D audio production, user interfaces for authoring and editing 3D audio trajectories enable content developers, composers, practitioners, and recording and mixing engineers to define how audio sources travel in time. However, common interaction techniques in 3D audio production tools can make the workflow of this task tedious and difficult to accomplish. This study investigates this problem by classifying the atomic tasks (spatially and temporally) of a general composite task of authoring 3D audio trajectories and then evaluating different interaction techniques across these tasks. Common graphical user interfaces were compared with input devices having varying degrees-of-freedom for spatial atomic tasks in order to investigate the effect of direct manipulation and integrality of interaction techniques. Continuous and discrete interaction techniques were compared for temporal tasks in order to investigate the effect of direct manipulation. Results suggest that interaction techniques with high degrees of integrality and direct manipulation reduce task completion time compared to standard GUI techniques. The design of temporal tasks can create a visual bias, and discrete-time controls can be a suitable method for traversing a small number of control points. These results and further observations provide directions on the study of interaction technique design for 3D audio tools, which in turn should improve workflows of 3D audio content creation.


3DUI 3D Audio Human–computer interaction 



  1. 1.
    Aceituno J (2015) Direct and expressive interaction on the desktop: increasing granularity, extent, and dimensionality. Ph.D. thesis, Université Lille 1 - Sciences et TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aceituno J, Potier L (2014) The secret life of computers. In: CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 151–152Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaudouin-Lafon M (2000) Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-wimp user interfaces. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’00, pp 446–453Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergstrom T, Karahalios K (2007) Conversation clock: visualizing audio patterns in co-located groups. In: 40th Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. IEEE, pp 78–78Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bresson J, Schumacher M (2011) Representation and interchange of sound spatialization data for compositional applications. In: International computer music conference, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carpentier T (2015) Récents développements du Spatialisateur. In: Journées d’Informatique Musicale, Montréal, Canada. Accessed 18 Apr 2017
  7. 7.
    Cumming G (2014) The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci 25(1):7–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cumming G, Finch S (2005) Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol 60(2):170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damaske P (1969) Directional dependence of spectrum and correlation functions of the signals received at the ears. Acta Acust United Acust 22(4):191–204Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Araùjo BR, Casiez G, Jorge JA (2012) Mockup builder: direct 3D modeling on and above the surface in a continuous interaction space. In: Graphics interface, canadian information processing society, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dragicevic P (2016) Fair statistical communication in HCI. In: Modern statistical methods for HCI. Springer, pp 291–330Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dragicevic P, Huot S (2002) Spiraclock: a continuous and non-intrusive display for upcoming events. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 604–605Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Favory X, Garcia J, Bresson J (2015) Trajectoires: a mobile application for controlling and composing sound spatialization. In: 27ème conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine. ACM, Toulouse, France, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia J, Bresson J, Carpentier T (2015) Towards interactive authoring tools for composing spatialization. In: IEEE 10th Symposium on 3D user interfaces, Arles, France, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacob RJK, Sibert LE, McFarlane DC, Mullen MP Jr (1994) Integrality and separability of input devices. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 1(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacquemin G, Coduys T, Ranc M (2012) Iannix 0.8. Actes des Journées d’Informatique Musicale (JIM 2012), pp 107–115Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirby KN, Gerlanc D (2013) Bootes: an R package for bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes. Behav Res Methods 45(4):905–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martinet A, Casiez G, Grisoni L (2010) The design and evaluation of 3D positioning techniques for multi-touch displays. In: 2010 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI), pp 115–118Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinet A, Casiez G, Grisoni L (2012) Integrality and separability of multitouch interaction techniques in 3D manipulation tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(3):369–380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mathew JD (2017) A design framework for user interfaces of 3D audio production tools. Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay. Accessed 10 Nov 2017
  21. 21.
    Mathew JD, Huot S, Katz BFG (2017) Survey and implications for the design of new 3D audio production and authoring tools. J Multimodal User Interfaces 11(3):277–287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melchior F, Pike C, Brooks M, Grace S (2013) On the use of a haptic feedback device for sound source control in spatial audio systems. In: Audio engineering society convention 134Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Metatla O, Martin F, Parkinson A, Bryan-Kinns N, Stockman T, Tanaka A (2016) Audio-haptic interfaces for digital audio workstations. J Multimodal User Interfaces 10(3):247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San FranciscoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sachs E, Roberts A, Stoops D (1991) 3-draw: a tool for designing 3D shapes. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 6(6):18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schumacher M, Bresson J (2010) Spatial sound synthesis in computer-aided composition. Organ Sound 15:271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Selker T (2005) Fostering motivation and creativity for computer users. Intl J Hum Comput Stud 63(4):410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shneiderman B (1997) Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces. In: 2nd international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, pp 33–39Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Emmerik MJ (1990) A direct manipulation technique for specifying 3d object transformations with a 2d input device. Comput Graph Forum 9:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veit M, Capobianco A, Bechmann D (2009) Influence of degrees of freedom’s manipulation on performances during orientation tasks in virtual reality environments. In: 16th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, pp 51–58Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veit M, Capobianco A, Bechmann D (2011) An experimental analysis of the impact of touch screen interaction techniques for 3-d positioning tasks. In: Virtual reality conference (VR). IEEE, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zeleznik RC, Herndon KP, Hughes JF (2007) Sketch: an interface for sketching 3D scenes. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 courses, p 19Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhai S, Milgram P (1998) Quantifying coordination in multiple DOF movement and its application to evaluating 6 DOF input devices. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computer systems, pp 320–327Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inria Lille-Nord Europe, LIMSI-CNRSUniv. Paris-SaclayFort LauderdaleUSA
  2. 2.UMR 9189 - CRIStALInria, Univ. LilleVilleneuve d’AscqFrance
  3. 3.UMR 7190, Institut ∂’Alembert, CNRSSorbonne UniversitéParisFrance

Personalised recommendations