Elicitation of attributes for the evaluation of audio-on-audio interference.

An experiment to determine the perceptual attributes of the experience of listening to a target audio program in the presence of an audio interferer was performed. The first stage was a free elicitation task in which a total of 572 phrases were produced. In the second stage, a consensus vocabulary procedure was used to reduce these phrases into a comprehensive set of attributes. Groups of experienced and inexperienced listeners determined nine and eight attributes, respectively. These attribute sets were combined by the listeners to produce a final set of 12 attributes: masking, calming, distraction, separation, confusion, annoyance, environment, chaotic, balance and blend, imagery, response to stimuli over time, and short-term response to stimuli. In the third stage, a simplified ranking procedure was used to select only the most useful and relevant attributes. Four attributes were selected: distraction, annoyance, balance and blend, and confusion. Ratings using these attributes were collected in the fourth stage, and a principal component analysis performed. This suggested two dimensions underlying the perception of an audio-on-audio interference situation: The first dimension was labeled "distraction" and accounted for 89% of the variance; the second dimension, accounting for 10% of the variance, was labeled "balance and blend."

[1]  Catherine Guastavino,et al.  Perceptual evaluation of multi-dimensional spatial audio reproduction. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  S. Elliott,et al.  Personal audio with multiple dark zones. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Some new tools for visualising multi-way sensory data , 2008 .

[4]  Conor M. Delahunty,et al.  Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future , 2001 .

[5]  B. Moore An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1977 .

[6]  R. Guski,et al.  THE CONCEPT OF NOISE ANNOYANCE: HOW INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS SEE IT , 1999 .

[7]  Ville Pulkki,et al.  Spatial Sound Reproduction with Directional Audio Coding , 2007 .

[8]  Tapio Lokki,et al.  Concert hall acoustics assessment with individually elicited attributes. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A. Gabrielsson,et al.  Perceived sound quality of sound-reproducing systems. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Kees Teunissen,et al.  Rapid perceptual image description (RaPID) method , 1996, Electronic Imaging.

[11]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[12]  Francis Rumsey,et al.  A Hybrid Technique for Validating Unidimensionality of Perceived Variation in a Spatial Auditory Stimulus Set , 2006 .

[13]  S. Bech,et al.  Quantification of Impression , 2006 .

[14]  Francis Rumsey,et al.  Identification of Quality Attributes of Spatial Audio by Repertory Grid Technique , 2006 .

[15]  J. Gower Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[16]  Tapio Lokki,et al.  Disentangling preference ratings of concert hall acoustics using subjective sensory profiles. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[18]  Elena Samoylenko,et al.  Systematic Analysis of Verbalizations Produced in Comparing Musical Timbres , 1996 .

[19]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  Comparing conceptual structures: consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast , 1989 .

[20]  Sylvain Choisel,et al.  Extraction of auditory features and elicitation of attributes for the assessment of multichannel reproduced sound , 2006 .

[21]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Quality Control of Sensory Profile Data , 2010 .