ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Perception of the size and shape of resonant objects
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Stefan Bleeck   

Stefan Bleeck, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, e-mail: bleeck@soton.ac.uk, Tel.: 0044 2380 596682
Publication date: 2013-12-31
 
J Hear Sci 2013;3(4):19–30
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
We investigated the ability of naïve, untrained listeners to identify the physical parameters of 3D polystyrene objects from listening to single impulse sounds generated by an impact collision. We were specifically interested in the perception of object shape and object size and their interaction.

Material and Methods:
Twenty polystyrene objects of various shapes (spheres, hearts, cubes, eggs, rings, and cones) and sizes (between 64 cm3 and 2278 cm3 ) were used in three experiments investigating size and shape perception. In the first experiment, the task was to identify the ‘odd one out’ of three sounds originating from objects of different shape or size. In the second experiment the task was to identify the shape and size of an object just by listening to it. In the third experiment the task was to rate how similar two sounds were.

Results:
Results show that listeners were able, to a degree, to identify the size and shape of objects without reference and in relation to each other. Multidimensional scaling suggests that shape (most salient) and size (second most salient) are the predominant perceptual dimensions.

Conclusions:
We conclude that humans, to some degree and without training and without prior experience, have the ability to infer the physical properties of object size and shape by listening to single impulse sounds. Size and shape seem to be independent and are the most salient parameters.

 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Kunkler-Peck AJ, Turvey MT. Hearing shape. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2000; 26: 279–94.
 
2.
Lakatos S, McAdams S, Caussé R. The representation of auditory source characteristics: simple geometric form. Percept Psychophys, 1997; 59: 1180–90.
 
3.
Carello C, Anderson KL, Kunkler-Peck AJ. Perception of object length by sound. Psychological Science, 1998; 9(3): 211–4.
 
4.
Kirkwood BC. The influence of presentation method on auditory length perception. In: Cummins-Sebree (ed.), Studies in Perception and Action IX. Psychology Press, 2005.
 
5.
Aramaki M, Besson M, Kronland-Martinet R, Ystad S. Timbre perception of sounds from impacted materials: behavioral, electrophysiological and acoustic approaches. In: Ystad S, Kronland-Martinet R, Jensen K (eds.), Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval. Genesis of Meaning in Sound and Music (Vol. 5493, pp. 1–17). Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-0....
 
6.
Lutfi RA, Stoelinga CN. Sensory constraints on auditory identification of the material and geometric properties of struck bars. J Acoust Soc Am, 2010; 127(1): 350–60.
 
7.
Lutfi RA. Auditory detection of hollowness. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110(2): 1010–9.
 
8.
McAdams S, Chaigne A, Roussarie V. The psychomechanics of simulated sound sources: material properties of impacted bars. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 115(3): 1306–20.
 
9.
Carello C, Wagman J, Turvey MT. Acoustic specification of object properties. In: Anderson J, Anderson B. (eds.), Moving Image Theory: Ecological Considerations (pp. 79–104). Southern Illionois University Press, 2005.
 
10.
Gaver WW. What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 1993; 5(1): 1–29.
 
11.
Gaver WW. How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 1993; 5(4): 285–313.
 
12.
Stoelinga C. A Psychomechanical Study of Rolling Sounds. VDM Verlag, 2009.
 
13.
Giordano BL, Rocchesso D, McAdams S. Integration of acoustical information in the perception of impacted sound sources: the role of information accuracy and exploitability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2010; 36: 462–76.
 
14.
Kirkwood BC. Maintaining Realism in Auditory Length-perception Experiments. PhD Papers in Technology and Science (pp. 2–4). Aalborg University, 2005.
 
15.
Warren WH, Verbrugge RR. Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: a case study in ecological acoustics. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 1984; 10: 704–12.
 
16.
Houben MMJ, Kohlrausch A, Hermes DJ. Perception of the size and speed of rolling balls by sound. Speech Communication, 2004; 43(4): 331–45.
 
17.
Giordano L, McAdams S. Material identification of real impact sounds: Effects of size variation in steel, glass, wood, and plexiglass plates. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119(2): 1171–81.
 
18.
Ives DT, Smith DRR, Patterson RD. Discrimination of speaker size from syllable phrases. J Acoust Soc Am, 2005; 118(6): 3816–22.
 
19.
Bregman AS. Auditory Scene Analysis. MIT Press: Cambridge, 1994.
 
20.
Patterson RD, Smith DRR, van Dinther R. Walters TC, van Dinther R. Size information in the production and perception of communication sounds. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds.), Auditory Perception of Sound Sources (pp. 43–75). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2008.
 
21.
O’Meara N, Bleeck S. Size discrimination of transient sounds: perception and modelling. Journal of Hearing Science, 2013; 3(3): 32–44.
 
22.
Galantucci B, Fowler CA, Turvey MT. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychol Bull, 2006; 13(3): 361–77.
 
23.
Massaro DW, Chen TH. The motor theory of speech perception revisited. Psychol Bull, 2008; 15: 453–7.