Objective: An experiment investigated the efficacy of auditory icons as warning signals in an aviation context. Background: Iconic signals, such as a cough to signal dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, convey information about the nature of an incident and alert the operator that there is a problem, whereas signals that are arbitrarily associated with a critical incident provide relatively less information. Warning recognition speed and accuracy are likely to be influenced by modality of presentation (visual, auditory, auditory + visual) and task demand (low, high). Methods: The 172 participants completed a computer-based training session and test task that involved responding to abstract or iconic auditory (1 s), visual, or auditory + visual warnings associated with seven critical incidents while performing low- and high-demand concurrent tasks. Results: Significantly fewer training trials were required to learn iconic warnings than abstract warnings. An advantage for iconic warnings persisted into the test phase, evident most consistently as greater warning recognition accuracy. The effect was observed in both high- and low-demand conditions. Auditory abstract warnings, in particular, elicited slow reaction times and poor accuracy. Conclusion: Associations between a small number of meaningful environmental sounds and critical incidents can be learned with ease relative to more abstract associations, although training is required and response times are relatively slow. Application: Sets of distinctive auditory iconic warnings can be designed to alert and inform pilots about non-time-pressured events. Potential applications of language-neutral icons as informative warnings include civil, commercial, and defense aircraft.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Begault, D.R. (1994). 3-D sound for virtual reality and multimedia. Boston: AP Professional.
2.
Belz, S.M., Robinson, G.S., & Casali, J.G. (1999). Anew class of auditory warning signals for complex systems: Auditory icons. Human Factors, 41, 608-618.
3.
Calhoun, G., Janson, W.P., & Valencia, G. (1988). Effectiveness of three-dimensional auditory directional cues. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 68-72). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
Caplin, S. (2001). Icon design: Graphic icons in computer interface design. London: Cassell.
5.
Chute, D.L., & Westall, R.F. (1996). Fifth generation research tools: Collaborative development with Powerlaboratory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 311-314.
6.
Doll, T.J., & Folds, D.J. (1986). Auditory signals in military aircraft: Ergonomic principles vs. practice. Applied Ergonomics, 17, 257-264.
7.
Edworthy, J., &Adams, A. (1996). Warning design: A research prospective. London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
Gaver, W.W. (1989). The Sonic Finder: An interface using auditory icons. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 67-94.
9.
Gaver, W.W. (1993). What in the world do we hear: An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1-29.
10.
Gaver, W.W., Smith, R.B., & O'Shea, T. (1991). Effective sounds in complex systems: The ARKola simulation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology (CHI 1991) (pp. 85-90). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
Gittens, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543.
12.
Graham, R. (1999). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: Evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics , 42, 1233-1248.
13.
Ho, C., & Spence, C. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing driver's visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 157-174.
14.
Isherwood, S., McDougall, S., & Curry, M. (2007). Icon identification in context: The changing role of icon characteristics with user experience. Human Factors , 49, 465-476.
15.
Keller, P., & Stevens, C. (2004). Meaning from environmental sounds: Types of signal-referent relations and their effect on recognizing auditory icons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 3-12.
16.
Liu, Y.-C. (2001). Comparative study of the effects of auditory, visual and multimodality displays on drivers' performance in advanced traveller information systems. Ergonomics, 44, 425-442.
17.
McDougall, S.J.P., de Bruijn, O., & Curry, M.B. (2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 291-306.
18.
Momtahan, K., Hetu, R., & Tansley, B. (1993). Audibility and identification of auditory alarms in the operating room and intensive care unit. Ergonomics , 36, 1159-1176.
19.
Norman, D.A., & Bobrow, D.G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes . Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44-64.
20.
Patterson, R.D. (1982). Guidelines for auditory warning systems on civil aircraft (Paper No. 82017). London: Civil Aviation Authority.
21.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon .
22.
Wickens, C.D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction . Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3, 159-177.
23.
Wickens, C.D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599-616.
24.
Wickens, C.D., Sandry, D., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227-248.
25.
Woodworth, R.S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology (Rev. ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company.
