1 / 26

Scaling Studies of Perceived Source Width

Juha Merimaa Institut für Kommunikationsakustik Ruhr-Universität Bochum. Scaling Studies of Perceived Source Width. Outline. Introduction Background on listening tests Description of the conducted pilot test Analysis methods & preliminary results Discussion & summary. Introduction.

otis
Download Presentation

Scaling Studies of Perceived Source Width

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Juha Merimaa Institut für KommunikationsakustikRuhr-Universität Bochum Scaling Studies of Perceived Source Width

  2. Outline • Introduction • Background on listening tests • Description of the conducted pilot test • Analysis methods & preliminary results • Discussion & summary

  3. Introduction • A room or a hall broadens the perceived width of auditory objects • Traditionally auditory source width (ASW) has been investigated as a descriptor for concert halls • How does the broadening depend on source signals?

  4. In other words... • In a scene based paradigm • source broadening is due to the part of room effect that is grouped with source signals • the rest of room effect is resolved into a separate percept • What are the spatial features related to auditory “deconvolution” of reverberation

  5. Listening test basics • Quantifying auditory perception • Levels of measurement Nominal Ordinal Short Long 2 3 1 Interval Ratio 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

  6. Possible test methods for assessing ASW • Direct scaling • Rating • Rank ordering • Assigning stimuli in successive categories • Constant reference • All stimuli are judged relative to a single reference stimulus

  7. Possible test methods (contd.) • Method of adjustment • Listeners adjust a variable reference to correspond to each stimulus • Adaptive procedures • Reference is adaptively adjusted based on listeners judgements • Pairwise comparisons • Each stimulus is judged relative to all others

  8. Why pairwise comparisons? • Source broadening is expected to be a sum of several interaural signal features • All except pairwise comparison methods force the results onto a linear scale • Weighting of dimensions implicit in the data • Can be accessed with factor analysis • Weights may vary between individuals, which will result in noisy unidimensional data

  9. Pilot listening test • Gathering both preference and distance data between pairs

  10. Two harmonic complexes,f0 = 196 Hz, -12 dB/oct No modulation (h1) Freq. mod. 1%, 6 Hz (h2) Pink noise 100 Hz –10 kHz (ns) Stimuli • Anechoic samples convolved with binaural room responses • Speech (sp) • Cello, f0 = 196 Hz(ce) • Snare drum (sn)

  11. Binaural room responses • Diffuse field and system compensated responses • Medium size diffuse concert hall (p) • RT = 2.2 s, 1-IACCE3 = 0.78 • Large multipurpose hall (a) • RT = 2.4 s, 1-IACCE3 = 0.02 • Small listening room (s) • RT = 0.5 s, 1-IACCE3 = 0.32

  12. Altogether 18 stimuli resulting in 153 permutations

  13. Analysis of preference data • A single run comparing all the the pairs results in a preference matrix that can be used to rank order the stimuli • In an ideal case each run will yield the same perfectly ordered set of data A B C D A B 1 C 0 0 D 1 1 1

  14. Real world comparative judgements • Each stimulus has a dispersion on a psychological scale • Each judgment of distance and order depend on current points of perception

  15. Checking for consistency • Circular triads • Mean for random answerswith 18 stimuli: 204 • Average in collected data approx. 40 • All data matrices consistent with significance p < 0.01 B A C

  16. Unidimensional scaling • Simplest scaling method: count the number of times a single stimulus is prefered over all others

  17. Wincount statistics, CR = 60

  18. Comparison with stimulus IACC

  19. More sophisticated scaling • Thurstone's law provides a method for mapping pair comparison data on an interval scale • Assumes normally distributed unidimensional data • Includes tests for checking the fit • Results • Significance of deviation from data p < 0.01

  20. Multidimensional scaling • Uses distances between stimuli to construct a spatial representation ofdata in n dimensions • Metric (interval) and nonmetric (ordinal) procedures • Few assumptions on data • Works well with a relatively small number of test subjects

  21. 3-D scaling of all stimuli 1.5 s_h1 a_h2 a_sn 1 a_ns p_ns a_h1 0.5 p_sp a_sp s_h2 0 p_h2 a_ce p_sn -0.5 p_ce p_h1 s_sp s_sn s_ce -1 s_ns -1.5 2 -2 -1 0 0 1 2 -2 3

  22. Comparison of the large halls

  23. Multipurpose hall vs. Listening room

  24. Concert hall vs. Listening room p_ns 2 1.5 s_ce 1 s_sp s_h2 p_sp p_h2 0.5 p_h1 p_sn 0 p_ce s_sn -0.5 s_ns -1 s_h1 2 -1.5 0 -2 -2 -1 0 1 -2 2

  25. Discussion & conclusions • The perception of auditory source width is clearly multidimensional • Results between the most similar spaces suggest separate source and room dimensions with some interaction • Euclidian metric of MDS might not reflect human perception between extreme cases • The pilot data is insufficient to draw more firm conclusions

  26. Future work • A larger listening test with a reduced set of stimuli • Interpreting the dimensions in terms of binaural cues • Breaking the experiment into several unidimensional studies • Use gained results in choosing stimuli • Similar investigations into envelopment

More Related