Advertisement

Scalable Auditory Alarms

  • Michael J. Waltrip
  • Carryl L. Baldwin
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 827)

Abstract

In information dense, visually complex environments (e.g., automobiles, airplanes, and operating rooms) auditory alarms can direct attention to critical events. Effective alarms are designed to convey a hazard level appropriate for the situation they represent. Acoustic intensity plays an essential role in perceived urgency, with louder sounds generally being perceived as representing something more urgent. However, intensity may be dictated by factors outside the alarm designer’s control (e.g., background noise, manufacturer’s sound system specifications). Therefore it is essential to examine other acoustic parameters that can be used to convey scalable levels of perceived urgency. Previous work suggests that looming sounds, or sounds perceived to be coming towards a listener, may result in faster response times than other types of sounds. Further, people may respond faster to looming sounds if the rate of change (ROC) in the increase in intensity is more rapid, potentially making them a strong candidate for scalability. Sounds increasing in intensity quickly may be perceived as more urgent than other sounds. However, it is critical that ROC is not confounded by overall intensity, since the intensity-urgency relationship is well documented. The present study measured perceived urgency ratings of auditory looming stimuli with different intensity ROCs that were equated for overall intensity. Results revealed no differences in urgency ratings across the three ROCs. Current results indicate that overall intensity is more critical than ROC to achieving scalability in auditory alarms.

Keywords

Looming Warning Urgency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Bridget Lewis for her help in sound creation. The authors would also like to thank Ian McCandliss and Fernando Barrientos for their data collection efforts.

References

  1. Baldwin CL, Lewis BA (2014) Perceived urgency mapping across modalities within a driving context. Appl Ergon 45(5):1270–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin CL, Eisert JL, Garcia A, Lewis B, Pratt SM, Gonzalez C (2012) Multimodal urgency coding: auditory, visual, and tactile parameters and their impact on perceived urgency. Work 41(Suppl 1):3586–3591.  https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0669-3586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edworthy J, Loxley S, Dennis I (1991) Improving auditory warning design: relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 33(2):205–231.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089103300206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gray R (2011) Looming auditory collision warnings for driving. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 53(1):63–74.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810397833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haas EC, Casali JG (1995) Perceived urgency of and response time to multi-tone and frequency-modulated warning signals in broadband noise. Ergonomics 38(11):2313–2326.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haas EC, Edworthy J (1996) Designing urgency into auditory warnings using pitch, speed and loudness. Comput Control Eng J 7(4):193–198.  https://doi.org/10.1049/cce:19960407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hellier EJ, Edworthy J, Dennis I (1993) Improving auditory warning design: quantifying and predicting the effects of different warning parameters on perceived urgency. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 35(4):693–706.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089303500408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Momtahan KL (1990) Mapping of psychoacoustic parameters to the perceived urgency of auditory warning signals. Carleton University, OttawaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations