Most earcons do not interfere with spoken passage comprehension

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 431-445

  Bonebright, Terri L ^a   Nees, Michael A ^b  

^a DEPAUW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY ORIENTATION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; SYMBOLISM;

EID: 66149090775     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1457     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1151-1162.
2. Berque, D. (2003). Boardtalker: Initial experiences and open problems in prototyping a talking digital whiteboard to assist visually impaired students. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD03) (pp. 296-299), Boston, MA.
3. Berque, D., Bonebright, T., Kinnett, S., Nichols, N., & Peters, A. (2003). A case study in the design of software that uses auditory cues to help low vision students view notes on a blackboard. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD03) (p. 307), Boston, MA.
4. Betz, B. (2002). Prototyping the development of groupware to help low-vision students view an instructor's blackboard notes. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications (pp. 148-153), Chesapeke, VA: AACE.
5. Blattner, M. M., Sumikawa, D. A., & Greenberg, R. M. (1989). Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 11-44.
6. Bolia, R. S., D'Angelo, W. R., & McKinley, R. L. (1999). Aurally aided visual search in three-dimensional space. Human Factors, 41, 664-669.
7. Brewster, S. A. (1998). Using nonspeech sounds to provide navigation cues. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 5, 224-259.
8. Brewster, S. A., Raty, V. P., & Kortekangas, A. (1996). Enhancing scanning input with non-speech sounds. Proceedings of the ACM ASSETS '96, Vancouver, Canada.
9. Brewster, S. A., Wright, P. C., & Edwards, A. D. N. (1995). Parallel earcons: Reducing the length of audio messages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 153-175.
10. Dimigen, G., Roy, A. W. N., Horn, J., & Swan, M. (2001). Integration of visually impaired students into mainstream education: Two case studies. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 161-164.
11. Durlach, N. I., Mason, C. R., Kidd, G., Arbogast, T. L., Colburn, H. S., & Shinn-Cunningham, B. (2003). Note on informational masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2984-2987.
12. Edwards, A. D. N. (1989). Soundtrack: An auditory interface for blind users. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 45-66.
13. Edworthy, J. (1998). Does sound help us to work better with machines? A commentary on Rautenberg's paper 'About the importance of auditory alarms during the operation of a plant simulator'. Interacting with Computers, 10, 401-409.
14. Edworthy, J., & Hellier, E. (2006). Complex nonverbal auditory signals and speech warnings. In M. S. Wogalter (Ed.), Handbook of warnings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Eimer, M. (2001). Crossmodal links in spatial attention between vision, audition, and touch: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1292-1303.
16. Ericson, M. A., Brungart, D. S., & Simpson, B. D. (2003). Factors that influence intelligibility in multitalker speech displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 313-334.
17. Fang, X., Xu, S., Brzezinski, J., & Chan, S. S. (2006). A study of the feasibility and effectiveness of dual-modal information presentations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20, 3-17.
18. Gerber, E. (2003). The benefits of and barriers to computer use for individuals who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 536-550.
19. GRE: Practicing to take the general test (9th ed.) (1998). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Griffith, D. (1990). Computer access for persons who are blind or visually impaired: Human factors issues. Human Factors, 32, 467-475.
21. Hankinson, J., & Edwards, A. (1999). Designing earcons with musical grammars. ACM SIGCAPH Newsletter, 65, 16-20.
22. Hereford, J., & Winn, W. (1994). Non-speech sound in human-computer interaction: A review and design guidelines. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 11, 211-233.
23. Ho, C., & Spence, C. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver's visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 157-174.
24. Ho, C., & Spence, C. (2006). Verbal interface design: Do verbal directional cues automatically orient visual spatial attention? Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 733-748.
25. Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., & Ranganthan, D. (2002). Hubbub: A sound-enhanced mobile instant messenger that supports awareness and opportunistic interactions. CHI, 4, 179-186.
26. Janata, P., & Childs, E. (2004). Marketbuzz: Sonification of real-time financial data. Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD04), Sydney, Australia.
27. Kalloniatis, M., & Johnston, A. W. (1994). Visual environmental adaptation problems of partially sighted children. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 234-243.
28. Kramer, G. (1994). An introduction to auditory display. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Auditory display: Sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces (pp. 1-78). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
29. McDonald, J. J., Teder-Salejarvi, W. A., & Hillyard, S. A. (2000). Involuntary orienting to sound improves visual perception. Nature, 407, 906-908.
30. Mondor, T. A., & Amirault, K. (1998). Effect of same- and different-modality spatial cues on auditory and visual target identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 745-755.
31. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
32. Peres, S. C., & Lane, D. M. (2005). Auditory graphs: The effects of redundant dimensions and divided attention. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2005) (pp. 169-174), Limerick, Ireland.
33. Resnikoff, S., Pascolini, D., Etya'ale, D., Kocur, I., Pararajasegaram, R., Pokharel, G. P., et al. (2004). Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 844-851.
34. Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767-780.
35. Rigas, D., & Alty, J. (2005). The rising pitch metaphor: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 1-20.
36. Schmitt, M., Postma, A., & De Haan, E. (2000). Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 105-130.
37. Simpson, B. D., Brungart, D. S., Iyer, N., Gilkey, R. H., & Hamil, J. T. (2006). Detection and localization of speech in the presence of competing speech signals. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD06), London, UK.
38. Spence, C., McDonald, J. J., & Driver, J. (2004). Exogenous spatial-cuing studies of human cross-modal attention and multisensory integration. In C. Spence, & J. Driver (Eds.), Cross-modal space and cross-modal attention (pp. 277-320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Stevens, R. D., Edwards, A. D. N., & Harling, P. A. (1997). Access to mathematics for visually disabled students through multimodal interaction. Human Computer Interaction, 12, 47-92.
40. Tun, P. A., O'Kane, G., & Wingfield, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychology and Aging, 17, 453-467.
41. Walker, B. N., & Ehrenstein, A. (2000). Pitch and pitch change interact in auditory displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 15-30.
42. Watson, C. S., & Kidd, G. R. (1994). Factors in the design of effective auditory displays. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD1994), Sante Fe, NM.
43. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159-177.
44. Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599-616.