Auditory Warnings for Electric Vehicles: Detectability in Normal-Vision and Visually-Impaired Listeners

Abstract Electrical vehicles operating at low speed are often too quiet to be detected by pedestrians in time. In order to study the efficiency of additional auditory warning signals they might be equipped with, a sample of 100 sighted and 53 blind listeners was exposed to a virtual road-crossing scenario in which they had to detect whether an approaching vehicle came from the right or left. Nine warning signals, designed to differ in particular sound features such as FM, AM or the number of harmonics were studied and compared with the recording of an unfitted electrical vehicle (EV) and a conventional diesel car. The responses measured in the scenario in which cars approached at irregular intervals over two 20-min periods showed no reaction-time differences between blind and sighted participants, and a significant advantage when listening under dry weather conditions as opposed to recordings mixed with the sound of rain. Most importantly, however, regardless of listening conditions and the population studied (sighted or blind), the additional warning signals differed greatly in efficiency. Some signals facilitated detection of the EV as much as making it as noticeable as a control diesel car of significantly higher sound pressure level. Other signals were largely ineffective compared with the unfitted EV. Analysis of the signal characteristics suggested a relatively low number of harmonics, absence of frequency modulation, and irregular amplitude modulation to be the most salient features facilitating timely detection.

[1]  Michael Zuschlag,et al.  Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I , 2010 .

[3]  Ercan Altinsoy,et al.  The detectability of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle sounds by sighted, visually impaired and blind pedestrians , 2013 .

[4]  Robert Wall Emerson,et al.  Detection of Quiet Vehicles by Blind Pedestrians , 2013 .

[5]  Joseph G. Pigeon,et al.  Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation and Discovery , 2006, Technometrics.

[6]  Katie Tataris,et al.  Incidence rates of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles: an update. , 2014, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  Steven van de Par,et al.  Comparison of detection threshold measurements and modeling for approaching electric cars and conventional cars presented in traffic and pink noise , 2013 .

[8]  Terry Speed Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery (2nd ed.) , 2006 .

[9]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  Prediction of perceptibility of vehicle exterior noise in background noise , 2008 .

[10]  Shin-ichiro Iwamiya,et al.  Cross-cultural study on feasible sound levels of possible warning sounds for quiet vehicles , 2011 .

[11]  Vincent Koehl,et al.  Influence of structural variability upon sound perception: Usefulness of fractional factorial designs , 2006 .

[12]  R. Patterson Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. , 1990, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[14]  Patrick Susini,et al.  Detectability study of warning signals in urban background noises: A first step for designing the sound of electric vehicles , 2013 .

[15]  Stefan Kerber The Importance of Vehicle Exterior Noise Levels in Urban Traffic for Pedestrian - Vehicle Interaction , 2006 .

[16]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.