Pitch and pitch change interact in auditory displays.

Designing auditory displays requires understanding how different attributes of sound are processed. Operators must often listen to a particular stimulus dimension and make control actions contingent on the auditory information. Three experiments used a selective-listening paradigm to examine interactions between auditory dimensions. Participants were instructed to attend to either relative pitch or direction of pitch change of dynamic stimuli. With vertically arranged keypress responses, reactions to both dimensions showed stimulus-response compatibility effects, indicating that pitch is treated spatially. Direction of pitch change affected responses to pitch; level of pitch more strongly affected responses to pitch change. To reduce deleterious effects of irrelevant pitch information, auditory display designers can restrict the pitch range used to display dynamic data.

[1]  R. Hinchcliffe.  The threshold of hearing , 2002 .

[2]  L E Marks,et al.  On cross-modal similarity: auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Robert D. Melara,et al.  Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. , 1987 .

[4]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[5]  John G. Neuhoff,et al.  The Doppler illusion: the influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[7]  C. Michaels.  Destination compatibility, affordances, and coding rules: a reply to Proctor, Van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[9]  Yvonne Lippa,et al.  A Referential coding Explanation for Compatibility Effects of Physically Orthogonal Stimulus and Response Dimensions , 1996 .

[10]  L E Marks,et al.  Perceptual primacy of dimensions: support for a model of dimensional interaction. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  P. Schiller,et al.  INTERRELATION OF DIFFERENT SENSES IN PERCEPTION1 , 1935 .

[12]  D. M. Green,et al.  Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  John H. Flowers,et al.  Musical versus Visual Graphs: Cross-Modal Equivalence in Perception of Time Series Data , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[14]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

[15]  J. R. Pomerantz.  Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  C F Michaels,et al.  S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: evidence of the detection of affordances. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Frederick N. Dyer,et al.  Latencies for movement naming with congruent and incongruent word stimuli , 1972 .

[19]  Meera M. Blattner,et al.  Listening to the turbulence: an example of scientific audiolization , 1990 .

[20]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[21]  L E Marks,et al.  Interaction among auditory dimensions: Timbre, pitch, and loudness , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – Visual Form Perception: An Overview* , 1986 .

[23]  D J Weeks,et al.  Stimulus-response compatability for moving stimuli: perception of affordances or directional coding? , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  B. Moore.  An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[25]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Processing auditory information: interaction of two population stereotypes. , 1976, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. , 1996 .

[27]  T. W. Forbes,et al.  Auditory Signals for Instrument Flying , 1946 .

[28]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Russell L. Martin,et al.  Learning and retention of auditory warnings , 1997 .

[30]  P. Fitts,et al.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Position, direction, and their perceptual integrality , 1976 .

[32]  Durand R. Begault,et al.  A Virtual Audio Guidance and Alert System for Commercial Aircraft Operations , 1996 .

[33]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Spatial Coding and Spatio-Anatomical Mapping: Evidence for a Hierarchical Model of Spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1990 .

[34]  E. Owens,et al.  An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1997 .

[35]  J Edworthy,et al.  Improving Auditory Warning Design: Quantifying and Predicting the Effects of Different Warning Parameters on Perceived Urgency , 1993, Human factors.

[36]  S. Mudd,et al.  SPATIAL STEREOTYPES OF FOUR DIMENSIONS OF PURE TONE. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  W H Ehrenstein,et al.  The Simon effect and visual motion , 1994, Psychological research.

[38]  Robert O. Gjerdingen,et al.  The psychology of music , 2002 .

[39]  Robert D. Melara,et al.  Effects of cuing on cross-modal congruity , 1990 .

[40]  Mary Sansalone,et al.  Use of sound for the interpretation of impact-echo signals , 1997 .

[41]  B. Hommel.  Spontaneous decay of response-code activation , 1994, Psychological research.

[42]  D. W. Robinson,et al.  Threshold of Hearing and Equal‐Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and the Loudness Function , 1957 .

[43]  Insook Choi,et al.  Using additive sound synthesis to analyze simplicial complexes , 1994 .

[44]  Benjamin W. White,et al.  Interference in identifying attributes and attribute names , 1969 .

[45]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Experimental evaluation of auditory display and sonification of textured images , 1997 .

[46]  John H. Flowers,et al.  The ear’s versus the eye’s potential to assess characteristics of numeric data: Are we too visuocentric? , 1992 .

[47]  R Walker,et al.  The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  Michael C Albers,et al.  Auditory cues for browsing, surfing, and navigating , 1996 .

[49]  John H. Flowers,et al.  “Sound” alternatives to visual graphics for exploratory data analysis , 1993 .

[50]  L E Marks,et al.  Dimensional interactions in language processing: investigating directions and levels of crosstalk. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  John H. Flowers,et al.  Cross-Modal Equivalence of Visual and Auditory Scatterplots for Exploring Bivariate Data Samples , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[52]  R. R. Patterson,et al.  Guidelines for auditory warning systems on civil aircraft , 1982 .

[53]  R. L. Deininger,et al.  S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.