4.5 Article

A model for the perception of environmental sound based on notice-events

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 656-665

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3158601

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)
  2. Belgian American Educational Foundation
  3. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA)
  4. Swedish National Road Administration
  5. Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (Vinnova).

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An approach is proposed to shed light on the mechanisms underlying human perception of environmental sound that intrudes in everyday living. Most research on exposure-effect relationships aims at relating overall effects to overall exposure indicators in an epidemiological fashion, without including available knowledge on the possible underlying mechanisms. Here, it is proposed to start from available knowledge on audition and perception to construct a computational framework for the effect of environmental sound on individuals. Obviously, at the individual level additional mechanisms (inter-sensory, attentional, cognitive, emotional) play a role in the perception of environmental sound. As a first step, current knowledge is made explicit by building a model mimicking some aspects of human auditory perception. This model is grounded in the hypothesis that long-term perception of environmental sound is determined primarily by short notice-events. The applicability of the notice-event model is illustrated by simulating a synthetic population exposed to typical Flemish environmental noise. From these simulation results, it is demonstrated that the notice-event model is able to mimic the differences between the annoyance caused by road traffic noise exposure and railway traffic noise exposure that are also observed empirically in other studies and thus could provide an explanation for these differences. (C) 2009 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.3158601]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据