To assess the efficiency of rough auditory alarms in capturing attention during a piloting-like task under high mental workload that may induce inattentional deafness.
Background
Under high mental workload and stress, pilots may experience inattentional deafness, leading them to miss critical auditory warnings. This results from early inhibition of the primary auditory cortex by prefrontal areas, shifting auditory processing oscillations from gamma to alpha frequencies. Recent studies suggest that roughness—an auditory perceptual feature of natural alarm signals generated by amplitude-modulated sounds in the 30–150 Hz range—could attract attention at early perceptual stages. Auditory roughness could sustain alarm detection under cognitive load.
Method
Twenty-seven participants underwent a demanding dual-task protocol. They simultaneously performed the Multi-Attribute Task Battery and an auditory oddball task including rough and non-rough targets. Participants also provided subjective ratings of the target sounds and of their perceived workload during the task.
Results
Rough targets were detected more efficiently with higher hit rates and no cost to false alarm rate, reaction time, or primary task performance. Accordingly, participants rated rough alarms as more urgent, unpleasant, and salient. Overall workload was unchanged, but frustration and mental demand were lower and performance higher in the rough condition.
Conclusion
This study provides promising evidence that rough auditory alarms enhance detection and help prevent inattentional deafness without degrading primary-task performance. Consistent with an effective alarm profile, roughness increased salience and perceived urgency.
Application
Integrating rough auditory warnings into cockpits could enhance alarm detection in cognitively demanding situations, improving safety.
AlfredsonJ.JohanssonB.Gonzaga TrabassoL.SchminderJ.GranlundR.GårdhagenR. (2018). Design of a distributed human factors laboratory for future airsystems. In 31st congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences. Belo Horizonte. Brazil, September 9-14, 2018.
3.
ArnalL. H.FlinkerA.KleinschmidtA.GiraudA.-L.PoeppelD. (2015). Human screams occupy a privileged niche in the communication soundscape. Current Biology, 25(15), 2051–2056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.043
4.
ArnalL. H.KleinschmidtA.SpinelliL.GiraudA.-L.MégevandP. (2019). The rough sound of salience enhances aversion through neural synchronisation. Nature Communications, 10(1), 3671. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11626-7
5.
BaldwinC. L.SpenceC.BlissJ. P.BrillJ. C.WogalterM. S.MayhornC. B.FerrisT. K. (2012). Multimodal cueing: The relative benefits of the auditory, visual, and tactile channels in complex environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1431–1435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561404
6.
BermanB.KochanJ.BurianB.PruchnickiS.ChristopherB.SilvermanE. (2017). Alerts and cues on the flight deck: Analysis and application in training. NASA Technical Memorandum.
7.
BlissJ. P. (1993). The cry-wolf phenomenon and its effect on alarm responses. University of Central Florida.
8.
CallanD. E.FukadaT.DehaisF.IshiiS. (2023). The role of brain-localized gamma and alpha oscillations in inattentional deafness: Implications for understanding human attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17(1), Article 1168108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1168108
9.
CallanD. E.GateauT.DurantinG.GonthierN.DehaisF. (2018). Disruption in neural phase synchrony is related to identification of inattentional deafness in real-world setting. Human Brain Mapping, 39(6), 2596–2608. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24026
10.
CarronM.RotureauT.DuboisF.MisdariisN.SusiniP. (2017). Speaking about sounds: A tool for communication on sound features. Journal of Design Research, 15(2), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1504/jdr.2017.086749
11.
CausseM.ImbertJ.-P.GiraudetL.JouffraisC.TremblayS. (2016). The role of cognitive and perceptual loads in inattentional deafness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(1), 344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00344
12.
CausseM.ParmentierF. B.MouratilleD.ThibautD.KisselenkoM.FabreE. (2022). Busy and confused? High risk of missed alerts in the cockpit: An electrophysiological study. Brain Research, 1793(1), Article 148035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2022.148035
13.
CegarraJ.MorgadoN. (2009). Étude des propriétés de la version francophone du nasa-tlx. In Epique 2009: 5ème colloque de psychologie ergonomique (pp. 233–239). ACM.
14.
CegarraJ.ValéryB.AvrilE.CalmettesC.NavarroJ. (2020). Openmatb: A multi-attribute task battery promoting task customization, software extensibility and experiment replicability. Behavior Research Methods, 52(5), 1980–1990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01364-w
15.
ClaytonM. S.YeungN.KadoshR. C. (2015). The roles of cortical oscillations in sustained attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.004
16.
CohenM. A.CavanaghP.ChunM. M.NakayamaK. (2012). The attentional requirements of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.013
17.
ComstockJ. R.ArnegardR. J. (1992). The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research(Tech. Rep.).
18.
CsapóÁ.WersényiG. (2013). Overview of auditory representations in human-machine interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2543581.2543586
19.
De BaeneW.VandierendonckA.LemanM.WidmannA.TervaniemiM. (2003). Exploration of roughness by means of the mismatch negativity paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999(1), 170–172. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1284.022
20.
De BaeneW.VandierendonckA.LemanM.WidmannA.TervaniemiM. (2004). Roughness perception in sounds: Behavioral and erp evidence. Biological Psychology, 67(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.01.003
21.
DehaisF.CausseM.VachonF.RégisN.MenantE.TremblayS. (2014). Failure to detect critical auditory alerts in the cockpit: Evidence for inattentional deafness. Human Factors, 56(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813510735
22.
DehaisF.RidaI.RoyR. N.IversenJ.MullenT.CallanD. (2019). A pbci to predict attentional error before it happens in real flight conditions. In 2019 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (smc) (pp. 4155–4160). IEEE.
23.
DehaisF.RoyR. N.ScannellaS. (2019). Inattentional deafness to auditory alarms: Inter-individual differences, electrophysiological signature and single trial classification. Behavioural Brain Research, 360(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.11.045
24.
DurantinG.DehaisF.GonthierN.TerzibasC.CallanD. E. (2017). Neural signature of inattentional deafness. Human Brain Mapping, 38(11), 5440–5455. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23735
25.
FastlH.ZwickerE. (2007). Psychoacoustics: Facts and models (Vol. 22). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
26.
FayR. R. (1972). Perception of amplitude-modulated auditory signals by the goldfish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 52(2B), 660–666. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913155
27.
FerraroJ.ClarkL.ChristyN.MoulouaM. (2018). Effects of automation reliability and trust on system monitoring performance in simulated flight tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1232–1236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621283
28.
GiraudetL.St-LouisM.-E.ScannellaS.CausseM. (2015). P300 event-related potential as an indicator of inattentional deafness?PLoS One, 10(2), Article e0118556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118556
29.
GolumbicE. M. Z.DingN.BickelS.LakatosP.SchevonC. A.McKhannG. M.GoodmanR.EmersonR.MehtaA.SimonJ.PoeppelD.SchroederC.others (2013). Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a “cocktail party”. Neuron, 77(5), 980–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.037
30.
HaasE. C.EdworthyJ. (1996). Designing urgency into auditory warnings using pitch, speed and loudness. Computing & Control Engineering Journal, 7(4), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1049/cce:19960407
31.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier.
32.
HechavarríaJ. C.Jerome BeetzM.García-RosalesF.KösslM. (2020). Bats distress vocalizations carry fast amplitude modulations that could represent an acoustic correlate of roughness. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64323-7
ImbertJ.-P.HodgettsH. M.PariseR.VachonF.DehaisF.TremblayS. (2014). Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifications. Ergonomics, 57(12), 1817–1832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.952680
35.
JASP Team. (2024). JASP Version 0.18.3 [Computer software]. Retrieved from. https://jasp-stats.org/
36.
KarpinskyN. D.ChanceyE. T.YamaniY. (2016). Modeling relationships among workload, trust, and visual scanning in an automated flight task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1550–1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601356
37.
KoutseffA.RebyD.MartinO.LevreroF.PaturalH.MathevonN. (2018). The acoustic space of pain: Cries as indicators of distress recovering dynamics in pre-verbal infants. Bioacoustics, 27(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2017.1344931
38.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide.
39.
McneerR.BodzinH. D.BennettC.EdworthyJ.DudarykR. (2018). Auditory icon alarms are more accurately and quickly identified than standard melodic alarms in a simulated clinical setting. Anesthesiology.
40.
MolloyK.GriffithsT. D.ChaitM.LavieN. (2015). Inattentional deafness: Visual load leads to time-specific suppression of auditory evoked responses. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(49), 16046–16054. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2931-15.2015
41.
MortazaviM. R.RaissiK.MehneS. H. H. (2019). A probabilistic approach to classification of human performance during interaction with a standard flight tasks simulator. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(8), 3211–3230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1038-2
42.
NäätänenR.PaavilainenP.RinneT.AlhoK. (2007). The mismatch negativity (mmn) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026
43.
NeesM. A.LiebmanE. (2023). Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech: A systematic review and meta-analysis of brief audio alerts in human-machine interfaces. Auditory Perception & Cognition, 6(3-4), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2023.2219201
PattersonR. D. (1990). Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0091
46.
ScannellaS.CausseM.ChauveauN.PastorJ.DehaisF. (2013). Effects of the audiovisual conflict on auditory early processes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(1), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.06.009
47.
StantonN. A.EdworthyJ. (2019). Key topics in auditory warnings. In Human factors in auditory warnings (pp. 345–360). Routledge.
TakaoH.HashimotoT.HatanoS. (1993). Quantification of subjective unpleasantness using roughness level (Tech. Rep.). SAE Technical Paper.
50.
TerhardtE. (1974). On the perception of periodic sound fluctuations (roughness). Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 30(4), 201–213.
51.
TombuM. N.AsplundC. L.DuxP. E.GodwinD.MartinJ. W.MaroisR. (2011). A unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13426–13431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103583108
52.
WalkerB. N.LindsayJ.NanceA.NakanoY.PalladinoD. K.DinglerT.JeonM. (2013). Spearcons (speech-based earcons) improve navigation performance in advanced auditory menus. Human Factors, 55(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812450587
53.
WickensC. D.RiceS.KellerD.HutchinsS.HughesJ.ClaytonK. (2009). False alerts in air traffic control conflict alerting system: Is there a “cry wolf” effect?Human Factors, 51(4), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809344720
54.
ZhuA.MaK.-H.ChoiA. T. H.HuD.HuC.-P.PengP.HeJ. (2025). The effectiveness of unimodal and multimodal warnings on drivers’ response time: A meta-analysis. Applied Sciences, 15(2), 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020527
55.
ZhuR.MaX.YouX. (2023). The effect of working memory load on inattentional deafness during aeronautical decision-making. Applied Ergonomics, 113(1), Article 104099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104099
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
