Product Sound Design: An Inter-Disciplinary Approach?

The practice of product sound design is relatively new within the field of product development. Consequently, the responsibilities and the role of a (sound) designer are not very clear. However, practice shows that various disciplines such as design engineering, acoustics, psychoacoustics, psychology, and musicology contribute to the improvement of product sounds. We propose that sound design should be conducted by experts who have knowledge in the afore-mentioned fields. In other words, we suggest that product sound design should be an independent field that encompasses an inter-disciplinary approach. Keywords: sound design; sound designer; product sounds; design processes; multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary</p

Lessons learned from the cVPP conceptualization

WP T1 | Activity 4 | Deliverable T1.4.

Lessons learned from the cVPP conceptualization

WP T1 | Activity 4 | Deliverable T1.4.

Task Prioritization in Dual-Tasking: Instructions versus Preferences

<div><p>The role of task prioritization in performance tradeoffs during multi-tasking has received widespread attention. However, little is known on whether people have preferences regarding tasks, and if so, whether these preferences conflict with priority instructions. Three experiments were conducted with a high-speed driving game and an auditory memory task. In Experiment 1, participants did not receive priority instructions. Participants performed different sequences of single-task and dual-task conditions. Task performance was evaluated according to participants’ retrospective accounts on preferences. These preferences were reformulated as priority instructions in Experiments 2 and 3. The results showed that people differ in their preferences regarding task prioritization in an experimental setting, which can be overruled by priority instructions, but only after increased dual-task exposure. Additional measures of mental effort showed that performance tradeoffs had an impact on mental effort. The interpretation of these findings was used to explore an extension of Threaded Cognition Theory with Hockey’s Compensatory Control Model.</p></div

Memory task performance (A) and driving task performance (B,C) as function of sequence and preference.

<p>Lines are added for interpretation only. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error of the mean, corrected for within-subjects variability. Note: participants did not receive priority instructions.</p

Memory task performance (A), driving task performance (B) and subjective mental effort (C,D) as function of instruction.

<p>Lines are added for interpretation only. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error of the mean, corrected for within-subject variability.</p

Results of the ‘driving’ and ‘equal’ priority instruction groups as function of preference.

<p>Lines are added for interpretation only. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error of the mean, corrected for within-subject variability. The participant with a preference for the memory task in the 'free choice' group was omitted. Note: no instruction was provided in the DUAL_{<b>baseline</b>} condition.</p

Performance by the control group (Experiment 2) versus two preferences (Experiment 1).

<p>Lines are added for interpretation only. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error of the mean, corrected for within-subjects variability. Note: participants did not receive priority instructions.</p