Human- machine interaction as influencing factor of indoor soundscape evaluation

1. Human-machineinteractionasinfluencingfactorofindoorsoundscapeevaluationHuman-machineinteractionasinfluencingfactorofindoorsoundscapeevaluation Dipl.-Ing. Jochen Steffens Prof. Dr. Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Becker-Schweitzer

2. Introduction – Perception & Action • Everyday experiences: • Intentional action affects perception • Perception results change behaviour Attention processes! • Psychological research: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions [1] • To which extent does action affect the perception of soundscapes? • How can we simulate natural action processes in test settings? German Traffic SafetyAssociation, www.dvr.de [1] Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions.Psychological research, 71(1), 22–29. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0033-3

3. HMI & Soundscapes • Machines: Important sound sources Focus on Human-Machine-Interaction (HMI) in indoor soundscapes • Objectives: • Understanding attention and perception processes • Ecologically valid test design for the evaluation of indoor soundscapes • Acoustically well-designed products • Presentation: • Simple model to describe the interdependency of perception and action during HMI • Illustration by means of two case studies on indoor soundscape evaluation

4. Machine Human Sensorsystem Action (Operating elements) Intentional attention (Top-down sensitivity control) „Behaviour“ Perception Stimulus-driven attention (Bottom-Up) HMI-Model [2] [2] [2] Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 215–229. doi:10.1038/nrn755

5. Case studies 1.Householdappliances 2.Vehicleinterior • Playback via Headphones • Focussing on sounds due totesttask • Invitation towashand dry clothes • No test-dependentattentionfocussing • Natural actionandbehaviourprocesses (Passive) Laboratory test Laundrette (Real environment) Yes HMI? No • Playback via Headphones • Videos ofdrivingszenario • Focussing on sounds due totesttask • Virtual reality • Simulated Human-Vehicle Interaction • 360° Video projection • Playback via Headphones (Passive) Laboratory test Drivingsimulator (Virtual reality)

6. Case study 1a – Laundry dryers • Low coherence between laboratory and laundrette: rLaboratory, laundrette=0,36 (Item Pleasantness) [2] • Key feature: Small differences between the single devices disappear in the real environment • Range decreases to about 2 scale points Interpretation: • Low auditory saliency of the sounds No stimulus-driven attention focussing • Dominance of top-down-attention which doesn‘t refer to the device (Learning, reading, surfing the internet) [2] Steffens, J., Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Becker-Schweitzer, J. (2011). Design of domestic Soundscapes – Evaluation of household appliances in laboratory and reality, in: Proc. Forum acusticum, Aalborg, Denmark

7. Machine Human Sensorsystem Action (Operating elements) Intentional attention (Top-down sensitivity control) „Behaviour“ Perception Stimulus-driven attention (Bottom-Up) HMI-Model (Drying) Fillingthewasher drum Startingthedevice Monitoring HMI in thebeginning, thenotheractions Laundrydrying Low auditorysaliency

8. Case study 1b – Washingmachines • Two test parts: Washing and spin cycle • Washing cycle: • Similar results like in the dryer evaluation:rLaboratory, laundrette= 0,47 Interpretation: Dominance of top-down attention • Spin cycle: • High coherence: rLaboratory,laundrette= 0,84 Small influence of the test environment Interpretation: • High auditory saliency (loudness, sharpness, temporal structure) • Dominance of stimulus-driven attention

9. Machine Human Sensorsystem Action (Operating elements) Intentional attention (Top-down sensitivity control) „Behaviour“ Perception Stimulus-driven attention (Bottom-Up) HMI-Model (Spin cycle) (Monitoring) Waiting forthe end Other actions Spinning High auditorysaliency

10. Case studies 1.Householdappliances 2.Vehicleinterior • Playback via Headphones • Focussing on sounds due totesttask • Invitation towashand dry clothes • No test-dependentattentionfocussing • Natural actionandbehaviourprocesses (Passive) Laboratory test Laundrette (Real environment) Yes HMI? No (Passive) Laboratory test Drivingsimulator (Virtual reality)

11. Case study 2 – Vehicleinterior • Evaluation of electric vehicle interior noise in a laboratory and a driving simulator [3] • Presentation of a pure wind and road noise as possible target sound (no engine sound) • Laboratory: Highest Pleasantness of all stimuli • Driving simulator: Devaluation! Interpretation: • Irritation because of missing feedback • Sound: Safety criterion which only occurs in a simulated or real HMI [3] Steffens, J., Küppers, T., & Skoda, S. (2011). Psychological factors influencing the evaluation of electric vehicle interior noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2546.

12. Machine Human Sensorsystem Action (Operating elements) Intentional attention (Top-down sensitivity control) „Behaviour“ Perception Stimulus-driven attention (Bottom-Up) HMI-Model (Driving – Noenginesound) Slow down? Strongeraccelerating? Driving Accelerating Experiences Expectations Acceleration Lesssound Evaluation: Disappointment Irritation

13. Overview on crucialfactors

14. Conclusions & Outlook • Requirements on test environment are depending on the saliency of the sounds and the dynamics of the HMI • Ecological validity of the test: Reconstruction of psychological reality, not necessarily physical reality Attention focussing in laboratory tests can lead to artefacts • Outlook • Influence of semantic content of the sounds and learning processes which can modulate attention processes • Analysis of HMI & HHI in different kind of Soundscapes • More complex scenarios

15. Thankyouforyourkindattention!