Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds From: Milena Droumeva <mvdroume@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:20:14 -0700 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--0016e659fb4438b9190486f4d520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, thanks to Brian and Valerie and everyone that's responded - I meant to only trouble the waters of this topic so we can have more of a discussion indeed! It's a topic of great interest to me and I think it's important here on this list to connect our views both as psychologists and auditory display designers. I do indeed think it's a matter of sub-categorizing environmental sounds, but also, I think making a distinction between what I called cultural habituation (or highly culturalized sounds - sounds that would be familiar/special to a particular group of people because of reasons apart from biology) and context-awareness triggers that someone else talked about - simply (well, not simply! :) taking the context of action as relevant in the perceptual and cognitive decisions we make on the basis of heard sounds (phone ringing in the context of expecting a call, e.g.) or even "typical" context for action for particular sounds that contain internal physical metaphor references (such as bouncing or rolling sounds). Of course, I am far from thinking ALL of those categories need to be studied with sensitivity to cultural factors such as gender and enculturation, but some do. In any case - it's great to see more thoughts and resources coming - It is such an important topic, and certainly - I hope to see more of a connection in the future between ecological acoustics and qualitative psychololgy/ecological investigations... Milena On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Guillaume Lemaitre <guillaum@xxxxxxxx > wrote: > Dear Milena and all, > The variety of factors at play in environmental sound perception is indeed > puzzling and fascinating, and I wish we could investigate more these > questions. > > > Milena Droumeva wrote: > >> >> >> Further - is any difference being made in the definition of environmental >> sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and digital >> sound? >> > To pursue the discussion, Milena's remark has reminded me of some results > we had, and that I wish we could have investigated more [1]. We were > studying how users emotionally react to the manipulation of sonically > interactive interfaces. We wanted to highlight systematic relationships > between acoustical features and certain patterns in the user's reported > feelings, but it turned out that one of the main factor influencing the > valence of the reported feelings (in short, how pleasant subjects found the > sounds) was the "naturalness" of the sounds. This factor was operationally > defined as follows: "natural sounds" were recordings of mechanical events > consistent with the interface users were manipulating (objects dropped on a > surface), and "synthetic" sounds were created by additive/subtractive > synthesis with the specific purpose of sounding artificial (I agree that > this definition is rather tautological). Both types of sounds shared the > same low-level psychoacoustical features (attack-time, sharpness, tonality). > In another study, Patrick Susini [2] also found that the "naturalness" of am > ATM interface's sonic feedback affected how usable users perceived the > interface. I have not further dug into this question, but my feeling is that > the way listeners process sounds is different when the mechanical cause of a > sound is understable (and here I tend to believe that "understable" is > strongly related to "how can I physically make that sound"), and when no > mechanical cause can be attributed to a sound (as this is the case with > certain synthetic sounds). But the question might also not be that simple, > because, to me, a recording is like a picture: it is not a the reality, and > listeners are not fooled. Especially in an experiment with recordings of > natural sounds, listeners know that they are listening to recordings, that > these recordings are technical representations of something, and "act as if" > they were presented with the reality. And in the absence of any other visual > or contextual information, some recordings of naturally occurring events can > become really puzzling, a fact well known by Foley artists. So the > distinction may not be between "natural" and "synthetic" sounds, but related > to the fact that certain sounds may activate perceptual-motor > representations (say: they activate the motor representations required to > make the actions that make the sounds), and certain may not. This might not > only be related to the sounds, but to the listener's experience, and to > contextual factors. > I wonder is someone has ever studied these questions. > > Guillaume > > [1] > author = {Guillaume Lemaitre and Olivier Houix and Karmen > Franinovi\'c and Yon Visell and Patrick Susini }, > title = {The {F}lops glass: a device to study emotional reactions > arising from sonic interactions}, > booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing (SMC) > Conference}, > year = {2009}, > address = {Porto, Portugal}, > month = {} > > [2] > author = {Patrick Susini and Nicolas Misdariis and Olivier Houix and > Guillaume Lemaitre }, > title = {Does a ``natural" feedback affect perceived usability and > emotion in the context of use of an {ATM}?}, > booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing (SMC) > Conference}, > year = {2009}, > address = {Porto, Portugal}, > month = {} > > > > --0016e659fb4438b9190486f4d520 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, thanks to Brian and Valerie and everyone that's responded - I mean= t to only trouble the waters of this topic so we can have more of a discuss= ion indeed! It's a topic of great interest to me and I think it's i= mportant here on this list to connect our views both as psychologists and a= uditory display designers.=A0<div> <br></div><div>I do indeed think it's a matter of sub-categorizing envi= ronmental sounds, but also, I think making a distinction between what I cal= led cultural habituation (or highly culturalized sounds - sounds that would= be familiar/special to a particular group of people because of reasons apa= rt from biology) and context-awareness triggers that someone else talked ab= out - simply (well, not simply! :) taking the context of action as relevant= in the perceptual and cognitive decisions we make on the basis of heard so= unds (phone ringing in the context of expecting a call, e.g.) or even "= ;typical" context for action for particular sounds that contain intern= al physical metaphor references (such as bouncing or rolling sounds). Of co= urse, I am far from thinking ALL of those categories need to be studied wit= h sensitivity to cultural factors such as gender and enculturation, but som= e do.</div> <div><br></div><div>In any case - it's great to see more thoughts and r= esources coming - It is such an important topic, and certainly - I hope to = see more of a connection in the future between ecological acoustics and qua= litative psychololgy/ecological investigations...</div> <div><br></div><div>Milena=A0<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, May= 19, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Guillaume Lemaitre <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m= ailto:guillaum@xxxxxxxx">guillaum@xxxxxxxx</a>></span> wrote= :<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Dear Milena and all,<br> The variety of factors at play in environmental sound perception is indeed = puzzling and fascinating, and I wish we could investigate more these questi= ons.<div class=3D"im"><br> <br> Milena Droumeva wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> <br> Further - is any difference being made in the definition of environmental s= ounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and digital so= und?<br> </blockquote></div> To pursue the discussion, Milena's remark has reminded me of some resul= ts we had, and that I wish we could have investigated more [1]. We were stu= dying how users emotionally react to the manipulation of sonically interact= ive interfaces. We wanted to highlight systematic relationships between aco= ustical features and certain patterns in the user's reported feelings, = but it turned out that one of the main factor influencing the valence of th= e reported feelings (in short, how pleasant subjects found the sounds) was = the "naturalness" of the sounds. This factor was operationally de= fined as follows: "natural sounds" were recordings of mechanical = events consistent with the interface users were manipulating (objects dropp= ed on a surface), and "synthetic" sounds were created by additive= /subtractive synthesis with the specific purpose of sounding artificial (I = agree that this definition is rather tautological). Both types of sounds sh= ared the same low-level psychoacoustical features (attack-time, sharpness, = tonality). In another study, Patrick Susini [2] also found that the "n= aturalness" of am ATM interface's sonic feedback affected how usab= le users perceived the interface. I have not further dug into this question= , but my feeling is that the way listeners process sounds is different when= the mechanical cause of a sound is understable (and here I tend to believe= that "understable" is strongly related to "how can I physic= ally make that sound"), and when no mechanical cause can be attributed= to a sound (as this is the case with certain synthetic sounds). But the qu= estion might also not be that simple, because, to me, a recording is like a= picture: it is not a the reality, and listeners are not fooled. Especially= in an experiment with recordings of natural sounds, =A0listeners know that= they are listening to recordings, that these recordings are technical repr= esentations of something, and "act as if" they were presented wit= h the reality. And in the absence of any other visual or contextual informa= tion, some recordings of naturally occurring events can become really puzzl= ing, a fact well known by Foley artists. So the distinction may not be betw= een "natural" and "synthetic" sounds, but related to th= e fact that certain sounds may activate perceptual-motor representations (s= ay: they activate the motor representations required to make the actions th= at make the sounds), and certain may not. This might not only be related to= the sounds, but to the listener's experience, and to contextual factor= s.<br> I wonder is someone has ever studied these questions.<br> <br> Guillaume<br> <br> [1]<br> =A0author =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{Guillaume Lemaitre and Olivier Houix and Karmen F= raninovi\'c and Yon Visell and Patrick Susini },<br> =A0title =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{The {F}lops glass: a device to study emotional rea= ctions arising from sonic interactions},<br> =A0booktitle =3D {Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing (SMC) Confer= ence},<br> =A0year =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{2009},<br> =A0address =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{Porto, Portugal},<br> =A0month =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{}<br> <br> [2]<br> =A0author =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{Patrick Susini and Nicolas Misdariis and Olivier = Houix and Guillaume Lemaitre },<br> =A0title =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{Does a ``natural" feedback affect perceived u= sability and emotion in the context of use of an {ATM}?},<br> =A0booktitle =3D {Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing (SMC) Confer= ence},<br> =A0year =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{2009},<br> =A0address =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{Porto, Portugal},<br> =A0month =3D =A0 =A0 =A0{}<br> <br> <br> <br> </blockquote></div><br></div> --0016e659fb4438b9190486f4d520--