Skip to Main Content

Experimental Psychology (Russia)
2025. Vol. 18, no. 4, 122–135
doi:10.17759/exppsy.2025180407
ISSN: 2072-7593 / 2311-7036 (online)

Subjective ratings, musical training and the perceived quality of auditory interfaces in an experimental task

 
Audio is AI-generated
1

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. The quality of the auditory interfaces can be assessed not only by objective measures of task efficacy, but also by the subjective ratings made by the users of these systems. However, these variables have not been compared yet in different types of auditory interfaces. Moreover, auditory interfaces are sometimes criticized as comprehensible only to musicians, but this hypothesis has not been tested either. Objectives. The study was carried out to: 1) investigate the relationships between subjective ratings of auditory interfaces and the efficiency of task performance; 2) find the most essential characteristics of auditory interfaces in their verbal descriptions; 3) examine the relationship between musical training in non-musicians with objective performance indicators, subjective ratings of auditory interfaces, vividness of sound imagery and preferences for sound modality. Methods and materials. The sample consisted of 52 students and instructors of Moscow universities. The measures included a computerized task with 2 types of auditory interfaces and 2 types of task-relevant information, the questionnaire of multi-modality in perception (Bandurka, 2004) and the Plymouth Sensory Image Questionnaire (Andrade et al., 2014; Razvaliaeva, 2024а). Each participant also compared a pair of experimental blocks between each other using the scales of sameness/difference, ease and preference, and gave a comprehensive verbal comparison between the two. Results. Ease and preference ratings were significantly related to each other, and the difference rating was related to types of verbal units. The sums of correct answers were higher in participants with musical training and in those who rated the non-spatial interface as easy. Descriptors of the physical qualities of auditory interfaces were homogenous and had the same direction, whereas descriptors of the subjective experiences related to the tasks substantially varied. Both types of the descriptors changed depending on the task that contained the auditory interface. Conclusions. The study showed the effect of ease rating and musical training on task performance with the help of auditory interfaces, as well as the impact of the task type on the perception of sounds that accompanied it.

General Information

Keywords: auditory interfaces, perceived quality, verbal comparisons, spatial sound, musical training, imagery vividness

Journal rubric: Psychology of Perception

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180407

Funding. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-78-01141.

Received 16.05.2025

Revised 07.08.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Razvaliaeva, A.Y. (2025). Subjective ratings, musical training and the perceived quality of auditory interfaces in an experimental task. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 18(4), 122–135. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180407

© Razvaliaeva A.Y., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Бандурка, Т.Н. (2005). Полимодальность восприятия в обучении. Как раздвинуть границы познания: монография. Иркутск: Оттиск.
    Bandurka, T.N. (2005). Multimodality of perception in education. How to broaden the horizons of learning. Irkutsk: Ottisk. (In Russ.).
  2. Носуленко, В.Н. (2007). Психофизика восприятия естественной среды. Проблема воспринимаемого качества. М.: Когито-центр.
    Nosulenko, V.N. (2007). Psychophysics of perception of the natural environment. The issues of the perceived quality. Moscow: Kogito-tsentr. (In Russ.).
  3. Носуленко, В.Н. (2023). Количественный анализ качественных данных. В: А.Л. Журавлев, Т.Н. Савченко, Г.М. Головина (Ред.), Математическая психология: современное состояние и перспективы. Материалы международной научной конференции, посвященной 90-летию со дня рождения В.Ю. Крылова. 26—27 октября 2023 г., Москва (с. 295—300). М.: Изд-во «Институт психологии РАН». https://doi.org/10.38098/conf_23_0469
    Nosulenko, V.N. (2023). Quantitative analysis of qualitative data. In: A.L. Zhuravlev, T.N. Savchenko, G.M. Golovina (Eds.), Mathematical psychology: current state and perspectives. Proceedings of the international scientific conference celebrating the 90th birthday of V.Yu. Krylov (pp. 295—300). Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.38098/conf_23_0469
  4. Носуленко, В.Н., Басюл, И.А., Жегалло, А.В. (2024). Соотношение мимических и аффективных характеристик в вербальном сравнении лиц. Экспериментальная психология, 17(2), 29—51. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170202
    Nosulenko, V.N., Basiul, I.A., Zhegallo, A.V. (2024). Relationship of Mimic and Affective Characteristics in Verbal Comparison of Faces. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 17(2), 29—51. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170202
  5. Носуленко, В.Н., Самойленко, Е.С. (2020). Распознавание сложных звуков по их вербальным портретам. Психологический журнал, 41(5), 25—37. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920011078-1
    Nosulenko, V.N., Samoylenko, E.S. (2020). Recognition of complex sounds by their verbal portraits. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 41(5), 25—37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920011078-1
  6. Разваляева, А.Ю. (2024а). Адаптация Плимутского опросника сенсорных образов на российской выборке. Экспериментальная психология, 17(3), 144—157. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170310
    Razvaliaeva, A.Y. (2024a). Validating the Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire in the Russian Sample. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 17(3), 144—157. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170310
  7. Разваляева, А.Ю. (2024б). Сонификация для управления пространственным положением объекта: систематический обзор. Познание и переживание, 5(2), 86—109. https://doi.org/10.51217/cogexp_2024_05_02_04
    Razvaliaeva, A.Yu. (2024b). Systematic review of sonification for controlling an object’s position in space. Cognition and Experience, 5(2), 86—109. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.51217/cogexp_2024_05_02_04
  8. Разваляева, А.Ю. (2024в). Экспериментальная методика для изучения возможностей использования слуховых интерфейсов. В: И.Ю. Владимиров, С.Ю. Коровкин (Ред.), Психология познания: материалы конференции (с. 260—264). Ярославль: ЯрГУ.
    Razvaliaeva, A.Yu. (2024c). Experimental task for studying the possibilities of auditory interfaces. In: I.Yu. Vladimirov, S.Yu. Korovkin (Eds.), Psychology of cognition: conference proceedings (pp. 260—264). Yaroslavl: YarGU. (In Russ.).
  9. Разваляева, А.Ю. (2026). Успешность выполнения компьютеризированной задачи с разными типами слуховых интерфейсов. Экспериментальная психология, 19(2) (в печати).
    Razvaliaeva A.Yu. (2026). Performance efficiency in a computerized task with different types of auditory interfaces. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 19(2) (in print).
  10. Andrade, J., May, J., Deeprose, C., Baugh, S.-J., Ganis, G. (2014). Assessing vividness of mental imagery: the Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 547—563. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12050
  11. Baldwin, C.L. (2012). Auditory Cognition and Human Performance: Research and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  12. Gisselgård, J., Petersson, K.M., Ingvar, M. (2004). The irrelevant speech effect and working memory load. NeuroImage, 22(3), 1107—1116. 
  13. Herceg, A., Szabó, P. (2023). Absolute pitch: A literature review of underlying factors, with special regard to music pedagogy. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 33(1-4), 40—47.
  14. Lee, J., Francis, J.M., Wang, L.M. (2017). How tonality and loudness of noise relate to annoyance and task performance. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 65(2), 71—82. https://doi.org/10.3397/1/376427
  15. Nees, M.A., Liebman, E. (2023). Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech: A systematic review and meta-analysis of brief audio alerts in human-machine interfaces. Auditory Perception & Cognition, 6(3-4), 300—329. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2023.2219201
  16. Neuhoff, J.G. (2019). Is sonification doomed to fail. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2019) (pp. 327—330).
  17. Peres, S.C., Best, V., Brock, D., Frauenberger, C., Hermann, T., Neuhoff, J.G., Nickerson, L.V., Shinn-Cunningham, B., Stockman, T. (2008). Auditory interfaces. In: P. Kortum (Ed.), HCI beyond the GUI: design for haptic, speech, olfactory, and other nontraditional interfaces (pp. 147—195). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374017-5.00005-5
  18. Psarris, G., Eleftheriadis, N., Sidiras, C., Sereti, A., Iliadou, V.M. (2024). Temporal resolution and pitch discrimination in music education: novel data in children. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 281(8), 4103—4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08571-7
  19. R Core Team (2024). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/ (viewed: 01.02.2025).
  20. Rimskaya-Korsakova, L.K., Pyatakov, P.A., Shulyapov, S.A. (2022). Evaluations of the annoyance effects of noise. Acoustical Physics, 68(5), 502—512.
  21. Walker, B.N. (2023). The past, present, and promise of sonification. Arbor, 199(810), a728—a728. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2023.810008

Information About the Authors

Anna Y. Razvaliaeva, Candidate of Science (Psychology), Researcher, Laboratory of Cognitive Processes and Mathematical Psychology, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2046-3411, e-mail: annraz@rambler.ru

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

Informed consent for participation in this study was obtained from the participants.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 2
Previous month: 0
Current month: 2

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 1
Previous month: 0
Current month: 1

 Total

Whole time: 3
Previous month: 0
Current month: 3