The effectiveness of three types of in-vehicle warnings was assessed in a driving simulator across different noise conditions.
Background
Although there has been much research comparing different types of warnings in auditory displays and interfaces, many of these investigations have been conducted in quiet laboratory environments with little to no consideration of background noise. Furthermore, the suitability of some auditory warning types, such as spearcons, as car warnings has not been investigated.
Method
Two experiments were conducted to assess the effectiveness of three auditory warnings (spearcons, text-to-speech, auditory icons) with different types of background noise while participants performed a simulated driving task.
Results
Our results showed that both the nature of the background noise and the type of auditory warning influenced warning recognition accuracy and reaction time. Spearcons outperformed text-to-speech warnings in relatively quiet environments, such as in the baseline noise condition where no music or talk-radio was played. However, spearcons were not better than text-to-speech warnings with other background noises. Similarly, the effectiveness of auditory icons as warnings fluctuated across background noise, but, overall, auditory icons were the least efficient of the three warning types.
Conclusion
Our results supported that background noise can have an idiosyncratic effect on a warning’s effectiveness and illuminated the need for future research into ameliorating the effects of background noise.
Application
This research can be applied to better present warnings based on the anticipated auditory environment in which they will be communicated.
BarrassS. (2014, September). Acoustic sonification of blood pressure in the form of a singing bowl. In Conference on Sonification of Health and Environmental Data (SoniHED 2014) (pp. 16–21). York, UK: University of York.
2.
BonebrightT. L.NeesM. A. (2007). Memory for auditory icons and earcons with localization cues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 07) (pp. 419–422). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
3.
BussemakersM. P.De HaanA. (2000, April). When it sounds like a duck and it looks like a dog . . . auditory icons vs. earcons in multimedia environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 00) (pp. 184–189). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
4.
DettmannA.BullingerA. C. (2017). Spatially distributed visual, auditory and multimodal warning signals—A comparison. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe (pp. 185–199). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
DinglerT.LindsayJ.WalkerB. N. (2008, June24–27). Learnabiltiy of sound cues for environmental features: Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2008) (pp. 1–6). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
6.
EdworthyJ. (1994). The design and implementation of non-verbal auditory warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 202–210.
7.
EdworthyJ.LoxleyS.DennisI. (1991). Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Human Factors, 33, 205–231.
8.
FagerlönnJ. (2011). Urgent alarms in trucks: Effects on annoyance and subsequent driving performance. IET Intelligent Transportation Systems, 5, 252–258.
9.
FagerlönnJ.LindbergS.SirkkaA. (2012, October). Graded auditory warnings during in-vehicle use: Using sound to guide drivers without additional noise. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 85–91). New York, NY: ACM Press.
10.
FayR. R.CoombsS. (1983). Neural mechanisms in sound detection and temporal summation. Hearing Research, 10, 69–92.
11.
GaverW. W. (1986). Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 167–177.
12.
GionfridaL.RoginskaA.KearyJ.MohanrajH.FriedmanK. P. (2016, July2–8). The triple tone sonification method to enhance the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s dementia. International Community on Auditory Display (ICAD 2016), Canberra, Australia.
13.
GrahamH. D.CummingsM. L. (2007). Assessing the impact of auditory peripheral displays for UAV operators (Report No. HAL2007-09). Cambridge: MIT Humans and Automation Laboratory.
14.
HarrisJ.VanceS.FernandesO.ParnandiA.Gutierrez-OsunaR. (2014, April). Sonic respiration: Controlling respiration rate through auditory biofeedback. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2383–2388). New York, NY: ACM Press.
15.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
16.
HussainI.ChenL.MirzaH. T.WangL.ChenG.MemonI. (2016). Chinese-based spearcons: Improving pedestrian navigation performance in eyes-free environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32, 460–469.
17.
JeonM.GableT. M.DavisonB. K.NeesM. A.WilsonJ.WalkerB. N. (2015). Menu navigation with in-vehicle technologies: Auditory menu cues improve dual task performance, preference, and workload. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31, 1–16.
18.
KarunarathneB.WangT.SoR. H.KamA. C.MeddisR. (2018). Adversarial relationship between combined medial olivocochlear (MOC) and middle-ear-muscle (MEM) reflexes and alarm-in-noise detection thresholds under negative signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Hearing Research, 367, 124–128.
19.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 9, 269–275.
20.
KramerG.WalkerB. N.BonebrightT.CookP.FlowersJ.MinerN.. . . EvreinovG. (1999). The sonification report: Status of the field and research agenda (Report prepared for the National Science Foundation by members of the International Community for Auditory Display). Santa Fe, NM: International Community for Auditory Display.
21.
LernerN.SingerJ.KellmanD.TraubeE. (2015, June22–25). In-vehicle noise alters the perceived meaning of auditory signals. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 401–407). Iowa City: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa.
22.
LiS. Y.TangT. L.HicklingA.YauS.BrecknellB.SandersonP. M. (2017). Spearcons for patient monitoring: Laboratory investigation comparing earcons and spearcons. Human Factors, 59, 765–781.
23.
MarshallD. C.LeeJ. D.AustriaR. A. (2007). Alerts for in-vehicle information systems: Annoyance, urgency and appropriateness. Human Factors, 49, 145–157.
24.
McKeownD.IsherwoodS. (2007). Mapping candidate within-vehicle auditory displays to their referents. Human Factors, 49, 417–428.
25.
MohebbiR.GrayR.TanH. Z. (2009). Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone. Human Factors, 51, 102–110.
26.
MurataA.KurodaT.KanbayashiM. (2014). Effectiveness of auditory and vibrotactile cuing for driver’s enhanced attention under noisy environment. In RebeloF.SoaresM. (Eds.), Advances in ergonomics in design, usability & special populations: Part II (Vol. 17, pp. 155–164). Retrieved from http://ahfe2020.org/files/books/2014ED-PART-II.pdf
27.
MurataA.KurodaT.KarwowskiW. (2017). Effects of auditory and tactile warning on response to visual hazards under a noisy environment. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 58–67.
28.
PalladinoD. K.WalkerB. N. (2008, September). Navigation efficiency of two dimensional auditory menus using spearcon enhancements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 52, No. 18, pp. 1262–1266). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
29.
SabicE.ChenJ. (2016, September). Threshold of spearcon recognition for auditory menus. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1539–1543). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
30.
SabicE.ChenJ. (2017, September). Left or right: Auditory collision warnings for driving assistance systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 61, No. 1, p. 1551). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
31.
ScottJ. J.GrayR. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50, 264–275.
32.
SingerJ.LernerN.BaldwinC.TraubeE. (2015). Auditory alerts in vehicles: Effects of alert characteristics and ambient noise conditions on perceived meaning and detectability. In 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) (Vol. 1, pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
33.
SperryJ. L.WileyT. L.ChialM. R. (1997). Word recognition performance in various background competitors. Journal-American Academy of Audiology, 8, 71–80.
34.
SuhH.JeonM.WalkerB. N. (2012, September). Spearcons improve navigation performance and perceived speediness in Korean auditory menus. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1361–1365). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
35.
SuiedC.SusiniP.McAdamsS. (2008). Evaluating warning sound urgency with reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 201–212.
36.
TardieuJ.MisdariisN.LangloisS.GaillardP.LemercierC. (2015). Sonification of in-vehicle interface reduces gaze movements under dual-task condition. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 41–49.
37.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. Cognitive Theory, 3, 200–239.
38.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Department of defense design criteria standard: Human engineering (MIL-STD-1472G). Washington, DC: Author.
39.
WalkerB. N.LindsayJ.NanceA.NakanoY.PalladinoD. K.DinglerT.JeonM. (2013). Spearcons (speech-based earcons) improve navigation performance in advanced auditory menus. Human Factors, 55, 157–182.
40.
WalkerB. N.NanceA.LindsayJ. (2006, June20–24). Spearcons: Speech-based earcons improve navigation performance in auditory menus. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2006) (pp. 63–68). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
41.
WangM.LyckviS. L.HongC.DahlstedtP.ChenF. (2017, May6–11). Using advisory 3D sound cues to improve drivers’ performance and situation awareness. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2814–2825). New York, NY: ACM Press.
42.
WegelR.LaneC. E. (1924). The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and its probable relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Physical Review, 23, 266–285.
43.
WendtD.KollmeierB.BrandT. (2015). How hearing impairment affects sentence comprehension: Using eye fixations to investigate the duration of speech processing. Trends in Hearing, 19, 1–18.
44.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
