Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Scientific papers

Vol. 48 No. 1 (2024)

Association of Psychoacoustic Metrics with Italian Words De-scribing Perceptual Sound Attributes

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ria1-2024oa17236
Submitted
febbraio 6, 2024
Published
2024-07-22

Abstract

Psychoacoustic parameters, being closely related to sound perception, are usually applied in product sound quality and, recently, also in environmental soundscape analysis or at workplace, to investigate its potential in describing acoustic comfort.

Lexicons of descriptive words of perceptual sound attributes are available in literature, but the language is often a crucial issue.

This paper describes two different experiments dealing with such words in Italian and the evaluation of their association with psychoacoustic parameters. For these experiments, 12 sounds recorded in three different environments (at workplace, in nature and in the community) were selected and processed to determine some psychoacoustic parameters. These sounds were randomly played in a quiet room at the same equivalent level Leq (dB) by headphone in the two experiments with two different groups of 24 subjects. Multidimensional scaling and correlation have been applied to compare their responses with some acoustic and psychoacoustic descriptors.

References (including DOI)

  1. D.E. Beaton, C. Bombardier, F. Guillemin, M.B. Ferraz, Guide-lines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures, Spine 2000, 25, pp 3186–91, DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
  2. F. Aletta et al., Soundscape assessment: towards a validated translation of perceptual attributes in different languages, Proc. 49th InterNoise, Seoul, Korea, 23-26 August 2020.
  3. ISO/TS 12913-2:2018, Acoustics-Soundscape Part 2: Data col-lection and reporting requirements.
  4. G.E. Puglisi, L. Shtrepi, M.C. Masoero, A. Astolfi, Evaluating soundscape in the Italian language: Validation of the translation of the English standardized perceptual attributes of the ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 and comparison with other Romance languages, Applied Acoustics 222, 11050, 2024, DOI: 10.1016/
  5. j.apacoust.2024.110050.
  6. H.T. Lawless, H. Heymann, Sensory evaluation of food - Princi-ples and practices, 2010, Springer.
  7. T.H. Pedersen, N. Zacharov, How many psycho-acoustic attrib-utes are needed?, Proc. Acoustics '08, Paris, France, 29 June-4 July 2008.
  8. N. Zacharov, T.H. Pedersen, C. Pike, A common lexicon for spa-tial sound quality assessment – latest developments, 2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Expe-rience (QoMEX), Lisbon, Portugal, 2016, DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2016.7498967.
  9. T.H. Pedersen, N. Zacharov, The development of a sound wheel for reproduced sound, 138th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2015, War-saw, Poland, 7-10 May.
  10. C. Guastavino, Everyday sound categorization, in Computation-al Analysis of Sound Scenes and Events, Eds T. Virtanen, M. D. Plumbley, D. Ellis, New York, NY: Springer International Publish-ing, 2018, pp. 183–213, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-63450-0.
  11. T.H. Pedersen, Lexicon of Sound-Describing Words – Version 1, Delta Report AV 11/05 THP, 2008.
  12. B.L. Giordano, R. de Miranda Azevedo, Y. Plasencia-Calaña, E. Formisano, M. Dumontier, What do we mean with sound se-mantics, exactly? A survey of taxonomies and ontologies of everyday sounds, Front. Psychol., 13, 2022, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964209
  13. A. Magrini, G. Di Feo, A. Cerniglia, Questionnaire analysis survey for acoustic investigation-Preliminary considerations, Proc. 48th InterNoise, Madrid, Spain, 16-19 June 2019.
  14. R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021.
  15. H. Fastl, E. Zwicker, Psychoacoustics. Facts and Models, Spring-er Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
  16. DIN 45631/A1:2010-03, Calculation of loudness level and loud-ness from the sound spectrum - Zwicker method - Amendment 1: Calculation of the loudness of time-variant sound.
  17. DIN 45692:2009-08, Measurement technique for the simula-tion of the auditory sensation of sharpness.
  18. R. Sottek, J. Becker, T. Lobato, Progress in Roughness Calcula-tion, Proc. 49th InterNoise, Seoul, South Korea, 23-26 August 2020.
  19. H. Fastl, E. Zwicker, Fluctuation Strength, Chap. 10 in Psychoa-coustics. Facts and Models, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
  20. ECMA-418-2, Psychoacoustic metrics for ITT equipment — Part 2 (models based on human perception), 2020.
  21. R. Sottek, T. Moll, Perception and modeling of impulsive sounds, Proc. Euronoise 2015, Maastricht, Netherlands, 31 May-3 June 2015.
  22. R. Sottek, K. Genuit, Models of signal processing in human hear-ing, AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communica-tions, 59(3), pp. 157-165, 2005.
  23. R. Zeelenberg, D. Pecher, A method for simultaneously coun-terbalancing condition order and assignment of stimulus mate-rials to conditions, Behav. Res., 47 (127), pp. 127-133, 2015.
  24. A. Magrini, G. Di Feo, A. Cerniglia, Acoustic Quality of the Ex-ternal Environment: Indications on Questionnaire Structure for Investigating Subjective Perception, J. Otorhinolaryngol. Hear. Balance Med., 4, 4, 2023, DOI: 10.3390/ohbm4010004.
  25. U. Ayr, E. Cirillo, F. Martellotta, Disturbo da rumore. Verifica sperimentale di una scala per la valutazione soggettiva, CDA, Sezione Ricerca, Settembre 2000, pp. 925-932.
  26. D. Dal Palù, B. Lerma, L. Actis Grosso, L. Shtrepi, M. Gasparini, C. De Giorgi, A. Astolfi, Sensory evaluation of the sound of roll-ing office chairs: an exploratory study for sound design, Ap-plied Acoustics 130, pp. 195-203, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.09.027.
  27. C.E. Osgood, The nature and measurement of meaning. Psy-chol. Bull. 49, pp. 197–237, 1952.
  28. J.H. Ward Jr, Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, pp. 236–244, 1963, DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
  29. A. Can, P. Aumond, S. Michel, B. de Coensel, C. Ribeiro, D. Bot-teldooren, C. Lavandier, Comparison of noise indicators in an urban context, Proc. 45th InterNoise, Hamburg, Germany, 21-24 August 2016.
  30. I.T. Jolliffe, J. Cadima, Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 374, 20150202, 2016, DOI: 10.10980/rsta.2015.202.
  31. S. Lê, J. Josse, F. Husson, FactoMineR: A Package for Multivari-ate Analysis.” Journal of Statistical Software, 25, pp. 1–18, 2008, DOI: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...