Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 Parameters |
| Gaver, W. W. (1986). Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Human-computer Interaction, 2, 167–177. |
  
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 08/01/2008, 07:51 | |
| Manipulating parameters of the sound itself such as pitch and loudness (what are termed proximal stimuli), forces mappings between data and representation "to be either arbitrary or, at best, metaphorical. A nomic mapping can only be produced by manipulating the sound in terms of its source -- by using natural sounds." Although such sounds may of course be symbolic or metaphorical, "natural sounds should make possible a higher degree of articulatory directness than manipulating dimensions of the sound itself." | |
| "an auditory icon is a sound that provides information about an event that represents desired data. Instead of using dimensions of sound to stand for dimensions of the data, dimensions of the sound's source are used" | |
| "Auditory icons provide a natural and intuitive way to represent dimensional data and to represent conceptual objects in a computer system." | |
| Metonymic auditory icons are those "in which a feature is used to represent the whole" | |
| "...Wagner's "Leitmotifs" and the use of sound in video games such as Pac Man, use metaphors based on similarities between the temporal progressions of the sounds and the events they are to represent. Other examples, such as the use of changing pitch to stand for changing heights, involve the use of a dimensional metaphor, in which one ordered dimension is used to represent another." | |
| Having suggested that nomic sounds have greater articulatory directness than symbolic, Gavin warns that culturally-ingrained symbolic sounds are just as powerfully representative and should not be discarded as useless. | |
| Discusses the notion of articulatory directness which is the continuum on which symbolic (least), metaphoric and nomic (most) stand. | |
Gaver identifies three mappings between data and its representation which he applies to sound:
|
|
| Gaver, W. W. (1989). The SonicFinder, a prototype interface that uses auditory icons. Human Computer Interaction, 4(1), 67–94. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/04/2013, 16:41 | |
| "Note that sound effects are not arbitrarily related to their associated events. Instead, they seem to rely on the abilities of listeners to generalize their knowledge about everyday sound-producing events to new ones, even imaginary ones involving things such as light-sabers or transporters. Windows in the everyday world don't open as the ones in the SonicFinder do, but this event does resemble others in the everyday world, such as the rapid approach or sudden expansion of an object. | |
| Describing the choice of sound in SonicFinder: "First, the user selects the file (Figure 1 A). This is indicated both visually, by the file becoming highlighted, and aurally by the sound of an object being tapped. The type of object is conveyed by the material being tapped. In this example, the object is a file, so it makes a wooden "thunk." If it had been an application, it would have made a metal sound; a folder would have made a sharper paper-like sound; disks a hollow metal sound (like a large metal container being tapped); and the trashcan a different hollow metal sound. In the Finder, there are standard icons for folders, disks, and the trashcan, but applications and files are not distinguished by icon type. These are easily differentiated in the SonicFinder by the use of different sounding materials for their selection sounds." | |
| Discusses conceptual mappings (events in computer world are mapped to tasks in a model world -- binary flow, gates, etc. mapped to file operations, for example, computer desktop is a conceptual mapping) and perceptual mappings (the mapping between the model world and the perceptual world -- how we interface). | |
| Main advantage of auditory icons in conjunction with the Apple desktop icons is their provision of redundant information. The provision of new information (e.g. about the size of disks) seems to be less important. | |
| Hard disks use a lower frequency sound than floppies because they are larger. | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 25/04/2013, 16:39 | |
| Using his simplified algorithms for modelling and synthesis of sound (simplification by discarding parts of the algorithm that have no perceptible effect, is likened by Gaver to "cartoon sounds" analogous to visual cartoons which "capture some defining features while leaving out incidental ones." | |
|
"...material per se does not exist as for mechanical physics, but instead is separated into many other dimensions such as density, elasticity, and homegeneity. Nonetheless, people do seem to hear the material of a struck object, rather than these other properties[cite]185[/cite]." |
|
| Suggests that it is a mistake that acousticians and psychologists make when they assume that hearing a sound as an event requires higher and independent thought processes (because this requires memory and experience) because the sound (these people assume) does not carry such information itself. | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 14/10/2008, 00:12 | |
| Points out that "concatenating the creak of a heavy door closing slowly with the slap of a light door slammed shut would be likely to sound quite unnatural." This is an example of higher level attributes of sound events not usually studied by acousticians. | |
Notes that sound FX CDs usually categorize by context although there is usually some further description of sound objects' hierarchy and physical properties. "A hierarchical framework that describes sounds' attributes and dimensions thus seems more likely to be generative, to delineate a space of possible sounds, rather than context-based classifications." p.21A simple hierarchy might be:  p.22while a more complex hierarchy might be:  p.24Notes that his preliminary categorisation into solid, liquid and gaseous sound does not cover all eventualities. What about fire? |
|
| Recounting a third-party experiment, Gaver notes that most participants could distinguish between and estimate the size of objects dropped into water. | |
| If an object's size is changed, the frequency of sound it emits changes too - frequency being the most significant factor of change among others. Therefore, a change in frequency is usually perceived as a change in size of the sound object. | |
| If radiant/direct sound is sensed it arrives at the ear before reflected/reverberant sound. For this reason is is possible to separate information about the sound from information about the environment. Additionally, the medium itself affects sound (e.g. high frequency loss in air) and changes in loudness and/or frequency usually indicate shifting sound (Doppler effect etc.). | |
| A reminder that because the scientific study of sound springs from research into musical acoustics (pitch, loudness etc.), little is known of other modes of auditory perception (e.g. how do we know if someone is walking up or down stairs?). The traditional approach argues that the knowledge about a sound event (ie. everyday listening) relies on experience and memory. | |
|
Distinguishes between musical listening (perception of a sound based on its pitch, loudness, temporal change, timbre and masking) and everyday listening (perception of the sound event itself and its environment). This is an experiential distinction or a perceptual one since any sound can be listened to in either listening mode. cf. Chion (1994, pp.25–34) etc. |