This paper investigates the prerequisites to creating auralisations that preserve auditory cues used by blind individuals during indoor navigation. It is part of a research project on the design of assistive technologies for exploring places prior to navigation. The investigation starts by listing the type of information used by blind individuals during navigation (room size, distance to walls, etc.) and by discussing the auditory cues they rely on to access those information. It then proceeds to characterise how various auralisation workflows can be used to capture or simulate and then present these cues to users. The listing is based on a literature review complemented with interviews with seven early and late blind participants. The characterisation is based on informal evaluations with those participants exploring various small and large-scale auralisation scenarios.
KolarikAJCirsteaSPardhanS, et al.A summary of research investigating echolocation abilities of blind and sighted humans. Hear Res2014; 310: 60–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.01.010.
2.
ThalerLGoodaleMA. Echolocation in humans: an overview. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci2016; 7(6): 382–393. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1408.
3.
PicinaliLAfonsoADenisM, et al.Exploration of architectural spaces by blind people using auditory virtual reality for the construction of spatial knowledge. Int J Hum Comput Stud2014; 72(4): 393–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.12.008.
4.
ZhaoYBennettCLBenkoH, et al.Enabling people with visual impairments to navigate virtual reality with a haptic and auditory cane simulation. Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, pp. 1–14.
5.
GriffinEPicinaliLScaseM. The effectiveness of an interactive audio-tactile map for the process of cognitive mapping and recall among people with visual impairments. Brain Behav2020; 10(7): e01650. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1650.
6.
MrózBKabacińskiMCiotuchaT, et al.Production of six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) navigable audio using 30 ambisonic microphones. In: Proceedings of the Immersive and 3D Audio Conference. Piscataway: IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–5. DOI: 10.1109/I3DA48870.2021.9610970.
7.
PatricioERuminskiAKuklasinskiA, et al.Toward six degrees of freedom audio recording and playback using multiple ambisonics sound fields. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2019, pp. 1–9.
8.
De MuynkeJPoirier-QuinotDKatzBFG. Creating navigable auralisations using RIR convolution: impact of grid density and panning method on perceived source stability. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2023.
9.
GospodarekMWarusfelORipollésP, et al.Methodology for perceptual evaluation of plausibility with self-translation of the listener. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2022, pp. 1–10.
10.
Bilal SalihHETakedaKKobayashiH, et al.Use of auditory cues and other strategies as sources of spatial information for people with visual impairment when navigating unfamiliar environments. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19(6): 3151. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063151.
11.
PapadopoulosKPapadimitriouKKoutsoklenisA. The role of auditory cues in the spatial knowledge of blind individuals. Int J Spec Educ2012; 27(2): 169–180.
12.
BlauertJ. Spatial hearing: the psychophysics of human sound localization. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/6391.001.0001.
13.
MartinVViaud-DelmonIWarusfelO. Effect of environment-related cues on auditory distance perception in the context of audio-only augmented reality. Applied Sciences2021; 12(1): 348. DOI: 10.3390/app12010348.
14.
McKenzieTSchlechtSJPulkkiV. The auditory perceived aperture position of the transition between rooms. J Acoust Soc Am2022b; 152(3): 1871–1882. DOI: 10.1121/10.0014178.
15.
BegaultDRWenzelEMAndersonMR. Direct comparison of the impact of head tracking, reverberation, and individualized head-related transfer functions on the spatial perception of a virtual speech source. J Audio Eng Soc2001; 49(10): 904–916.
16.
McCormackLPolitisAMcKenzieT, et al.Object-based six-degrees-of-freedom rendering of sound scenes captured with multiple ambisonic receivers. J Audio Eng Soc2022; 70(5): 355–372. DOI: 10.17743/jaes.2022.0010.
17.
De MuynkeJPoirier-QuinotDKatzBFG. Effect of interpolation artefacts on perceived stability of nearby sources in a navigable reverberant environment. J Audio Eng Soc2024; 72(10): 664–678. DOI: 10.17743/jaes.2022.0158.
18.
NeidhardtAReifB. Minimum BRIR grid resolution for interactive position changes in dynamic binaural synthesis. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2020, pp. 2–10.
19.
HalmrastT. Acoustics in between: perception of sound in rooms beyond standard criteria. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain2015; 25(3): 256–271. DOI: 10.1037/pmu0000077.
20.
KolarikAJScarfeACMooreBC, et al.Blindness enhances auditory obstacle circumvention: assessing echolocation, sensory substitution, and visual-based navigation. PLoS One2017; 12(4): e0175750. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175750.
21.
NormanLJDodsworthCForesteireD, et al.Human click-based echolocation: effects of blindness and age, and real-life implications in a 10-week training program. PLoS One2021; 16(6): e0252330. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252330.
22.
ThalerLArnottSRGoodaleMA. Neural correlates of natural human echolocation in early and late blind echolocation experts. PLoS One2011; 6(5): e20162. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020162.
23.
TengSPuriAWhitneyD. Ultrafine spatial acuity of blind expert human echolocators. Exp Brain Res2012; 216: 483–488. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2951-1.
24.
SchörnichSNagyAWiegrebeL. Discovering your inner bat: echo–acoustic target ranging in humans. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol2012; 13: 673–682. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-012-0338-z.
25.
AriasCRamosOA. Psychoacoustic tests for the study of human echolocation ability. Appl Acoust1997; 51(4): 399–419. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-682X(97)00010-8.
26.
SchenkmanBNNilssonME. Human echolocation: pitch versus loudness information. Perception2011; 40(7): 840–852. DOI: 10.1068/p6898.
27.
RiceCEFeinsteinSH. Sonar system of the blind: size discrimination. Science1965; 148(3673): 1107–1108. DOI: 10.1126/science.148.3673.1107.
28.
StroffregenTAPittengerJB. Human echolocation as a basic form of perception and action. Ecol Psychol1995; 7(3): 181–216. DOI: 10.1207/s15326969eco0703_2.
29.
HausfeldSPowerRPGortaA, et al.Echo perception of shape and texture by sighted subjects. Percept Mot Skills1982; 55(2): 623–632. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1982.55.2.623.
30.
DeLongCMAuWWStamperSA. Echo features used by human listeners to discriminate among objects that vary in material or wall thickness: implications for echolocating dolphins. J Acoust Soc Am2007; 121(1): 605–617. DOI: 10.1121/1.2400848.
31.
GarciaDPRychtárikováMGlorieuxC, et al.Interactive auralization of self-generated oral sounds in virtual acoustic environments for research in human echolocation. Proceedings of Forum Acusticum. Kraków, Poland: European Acoustics Association, 2014, pp. 1–6.
32.
ThalerLReichGMZhangX, et al.Mouth-clicks used by blind expert human echolocators: signal description and model based signal synthesis. PLoS Comput Biol2017; 13(8): e1005670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005670.
33.
BrinkmannFAspöckLAckermannD, et al.A round robin on room acoustical simulation and auralization. J Acoust Soc Am2019; 145(4): 2746–2760. DOI: 10.1121/1.5096178.
34.
McKenzieTSchlechtSJPulkkiV. Auralisation of the transition between coupled rooms. In: Proceedings of the Immersive and 3D Audio Conference. Piscataway: IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.1109/I3DA48870.2021.9610955.
35.
WeberAKatzBFG. Numerical simulation round robin of a coupled volume case: preliminary results. Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics. Aachen, Germany: German Acoustical Society, 2019, pp. 6051–6058.
36.
AlaryBVälimäkiV. A method for capturing and reproducing directional reverberation in six degrees of freedom. In: Proceedings of the Immersive and 3D Audio Conference. Piscataway: IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8. DOI: 10.1109/I3DA48870.2021.9610913.
37.
AramakiMBessonMKronland-MartinetR, et al.Controlling the perceived material in an impact sound synthesizer. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process2010; 19(2): 301–314. DOI: 10.1109/TASL.2010.2047755.
38.
NeidhardtASchneiderwindCKleinF. Perceptual matching of room acoustics for auditory augmented reality in small rooms-literature review and theoretical framework. Trends Hear2022; 26: 23312165221092919. DOI: 10.1177/2331216522109291.
39.
RosenblumLDGordonMSJarquinL. Echolocating distance by moving and stationary listeners. Ecol Psychol2000; 12(3): 181–206. DOI: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1203_1.
ZotterFFrankM. Ambisonics: a practical 3D audio theory for recording, studio production, sound reinforcement, and virtual reality. Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature2019.
43.
MüllerKZotterF. Auralization based on multi-perspective ambisonic room impulse responses. Acta Acustica2020; 4(6): 25. DOI: 10.1051/aacus/2020024.
44.
McKenzieTMeyer-KahlenNDaugintisR, et al.Perceptually informed interpolation and rendering of spatial room impulse responses for room transitions. Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics. Gyeongju, Korea: Acoustical Society of Korea, 2022, pp. 1–11.
45.
ŢopaMDTomaNKireiBS, et al.Comparison of different experimental methods for the assessment of the room’s acoustics. Acoust Phys2011; 57: 199–207. DOI: 10.1134/S1063771011020229.
46.
PostmaBNKatzBFG. Creation and calibration method of virtual acoustic models for historic auralizations. Virtual Real2015; 19: 161–180. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-015-0275-3.
47.
DiasPCamposGSantosV, et al.3D reconstruction and spatial auralization of the painted dolmen of Antelas. Proceedings of the Three-Dimensional Image Capture and Applications Conference2008; 6805: 272–281. DOI: 10.1117/12.766607.
48.
3382-1:2009, I. Acoustics - measurement of room acoustic parameters - Part 1: performance spaces. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2009. Technical report.
49.
BellowsSKatzBFG. Calibrating geometric room acoustic models using a gradient descent algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2024.
50.
WabińskiJMościckaATouyaG. Guidelines for standardizing the design of tactile maps: a review of research and best practice. Cartogr J2022; 59(3): 239–258. DOI: 10.1080/00087041.2022.2097760.
51.
SchörkhuberCZaunschirmMHöldrichR. Binaural rendering of ambisonic signals via magnitude least squares. Proceedings of the DAGA Conference2018; 44: 339–342.
BujaczMKrólakASztylerB, et al.Effectiveness of different sounds in human echolocation in live tests. PLoS One2024; 19(10): e0306001. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306001.
54.
BertetSDanielJParizetE, et al.Investigation on localisation accuracy for first and higher order ambisonics reproduced sound sources. Acta Acustica United Acustica2013; 99(4): 642–657. DOI: 10.3813/AAA.918643.
55.
FargeotSVidalAAramakiM, et al.Perceptual evaluation of an ambisonic auralization system of measured 3D acoustics. Acta Acustica2023; 7: 56. DOI: 10.1051/aacus/2023052.
56.
HarkerATremblayPA. The HISSTools impulse response toolbox: convolution for the masses. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing Services, 2012, pp. 148–155.
57.
WallmeierLWiegrebeL. Self-motion facilitates echo-acoustic orientation in humans. R Soc Open Sci2014; 1(3): 140185. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140185.
58.
MullinsSSKatzBFG. Immersive auralisations for choral ensembles. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditorium Acoustics. Milton Keynes: Institute of Acoustics, 2023, pp. 1–9.
59.
KatzBFGLeconteSStittP. EVAA: a platform for experimental virtual archeological-acoustics to study the influence of performance space. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Room Acoustics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Acoustical Society of the Netherlands, 2019, pp. 345–352.
60.
KatzBFGPostmaBNPoirier-QuinotD. Virtual reconstructions of the Théâtre de l’Athénée for archeoacoustic study. Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics. Aachen, Germany: German Acoustical Society, 2019, pp. 303–310.
61.
BrinkmannFLindauAWeinzierlS. On the authenticity of individual dynamic binaural synthesis. J Acoust Soc Am2017; 142(4): 1784–1795. DOI: 10.1121/1.5005606.
BassettIGEastmondEJ. Echolocation: measurement of pitch versus distance for sounds reflected from a flat surface. J Acoust Soc Am1964; 36(5): 911–916. DOI: 10.1121/1.1919117.
64.
RobinsonDKearneyG. Echolocation in virtual reality. Proceedings of the Interactive Audio Systems Symposium. York United Kingdom: University of York, 2016, pp. 1–7.
65.
Poirier-QuinotDLawlessMSStittP, et al.HRTF performance evaluation: methodology and metrics for localisation accuracy and learning assessment. London: Intech Open, 2022, pp. 1–32. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.104931.
66.
CabreraDSatoHMartensWL, et al.Binaural measurement and simulation of the room acoustical response from a person’s mouth to their ears. Acoust Aust2009; 37(3): 98–103.
67.
GonzalezRArchontisPLokkiT. Effects of near-field sources on ambisonics recording and playback. In: Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Conference. Virtual: Audio Engineering Society, 2021.
68.
Poirier-QuinotDKatzBFGNoisternigM. EVERTims: open source framework for real-time auralization in architectural acoustics and virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Audio Effects. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp. 323–328.
69.
SmithSA. Virtual reality in episodic memory research: a review. Psychon Bull Rev2019; 26: 1213–1237. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01605-w.
