Sound Research WIKINDX

WIKINDX Resources

Gaver, W. W. (1986). Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Human-computer Interaction, 2, 167–177. 
Added by: sirfragalot (02/22/2006 02:03:09 PM)   Last edited by: sirfragalot (01/08/2008 08:51:52 AM)
Resource type: Journal Article
ID no. (ISBN etc.): 0737-0024
BibTeX citation key: Gaver1986
View all bibliographic details
Categories: Semiology, Sound Design, Typologies/Taxonomies
Keywords: Earcons & Auditory Icons, Semantic categorization, Symbolism
Creators: Gaver
Collection: Human-computer Interaction
Resources citing this (Bibliography: WIKINDX Master Bibliography)
Views: 6/623
Some useful ideas on using the properties of sound to convey information/ discussion of the pros and cons of artificial sound as symbols (or artificially manipulating sound's physical properties) as symbols and natural sound as icons.

Compare with Blattner et al. (1989)'s musical motivic approach to earcon design.

Gaver's ideas are usefully critiqued by Familant & Detweiler (1993).

Blattner, M. M., Sumikawa, D. A., & Greenberg, R. M. (1989). Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles. Human-computer Interaction, 4, 11–44.
Familant, M. E., & Detweiler, M. C. (1993). Iconic reference: Evolving perspectives and an organizing framework. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(5), 705–728.
Added by: sirfragalot  Last edited by: sirfragalot
p.168   "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"   Added by: sirfragalot
Keywords:   Earcons & Auditory Icons
p.170   Metonymic auditory icons are those "in which a feature is used to represent the whole"   Added by: sirfragalot
Keywords:   Earcons & Auditory Icons
p.171   "...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."   Added by: sirfragalot
p.172   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."   Added by: sirfragalot
p.176   "Auditory icons provide a natural and intuitive way to represent dimensional data and to represent conceptual objects in a computer system."   Added by: sirfragalot
Keywords:   Earcons & Auditory Icons
pp.170-171   Gaver identifies three mappings between data and its representation which he applies to sound:

  1. symbolic -- arbitrary mapping
  2. Metaphoric -- similarities between data and representation which may be structure-mapped (structural similarities) or metonymic.
  3. Nomic -- direct relationship between representation of the sound source and sound. Gavin terms these types of sound auditory icons.
  Added by: sirfragalot
Keywords:   Semantic categorization
p.172   Discusses the notion of articulatory directness which is the continuum on which symbolic (least), metaphoric and nomic (most) stand.   Added by: sirfragalot
p.173   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.   Added by: sirfragalot
WIKINDX 6.4.9 | Total resources: 1084 | Username: -- | Bibliography: WIKINDX Master Bibliography | Style: American Psychological Association (APA)

PHP execution time: 0.08428 s
SQL execution time: 0.08247 s
TPL rendering time: 0.00441 s
Total elapsed time: 0.17116 s
Peak memory usage: 9.6005 MB
Memory at close: 9.4941 MB
Database queries: 100