Equating Perceived Urgency Across Auditory, Visual, and Tactile Signals

Determining the most effective modality to use to draw an operator’s attention to a specific situation has been a topic of recent interest. Making this determination requires ensuring that the signals being compared have been equated for saliency and perceived urgency. We conducted an experiment to examine how perceptions of urgency and annoyance change with changes in physical parameters across auditory, visual, and tactile modalities. While urgency ratings in the low, medium, and high range were found in each modality, parameters such as interpulse interval had a greater impact on perceived urgency than annoyance in the auditory and tactile modality, while having relatively little impact in the visual modality. Results can be used to facilitate the design of alerts and warnings with pre-specified urgency levels while minimizing annoyance and have implications for both research and interface design.

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

[2]  J. Edworthy,et al.  Are there too many alarms in the intensive care unit? An overview of the problems. , 1995, Journal of advanced nursing.

[3]  Tonya L Smith-Jackson,et al.  Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. , 2002, Applied ergonomics.

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

[5]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Driver comprehension of multiple haptic seat alerts intended for use in an integrated collision avoidance system , 2011 .

[6]  Judy Edworthy,et al.  Warning design : a research prospective , 1996 .

[7]  R. Teghtsoonian,et al.  Range effects in psychophysical scaling and a revision of Stevens' law. , 1973, The American journal of psychology.

[8]  Johan Fagerlönn,et al.  Urgent alarms in trucks: effects on annoyance and subsequent driving performance , 2011 .

[9]  Robert Gray,et al.  A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[10]  John D. Lee,et al.  Alerts for In-Vehicle Information Systems: Annoyance, Urgency, and Appropriateness , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[11]  P A Hancock,et al.  Alarm effectiveness in driver-centred collision-warning systems. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[12]  Charles Spence,et al.  Multisensory warning signals: when spatial correspondence matters , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  J Edworthy,et al.  Improving Auditory Warning Design: Relationship between Warning Sound Parameters and Perceived Urgency , 1991, Human factors.

[14]  G. Robert Arrabito,et al.  Effects of Talker Sex and Voice Style of Verbal Cockpit Warnings on Performance , 2009, Hum. Factors.

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

[16]  Carryl L. Baldwin.  Verbal collision avoidance messages during simulated driving: perceived urgency, alerting effectiveness and annoyance , 2011, Ergonomics.

[17]  P. Susini,et al.  Evaluating warning sound urgency with reaction times. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[18]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Regression effect in psychophysical judgment , 1966 .