Leisure and road trafficare twoofthe major contributors to environmental noise in urban agglomerations. This environmental problem is particularly important in some cities, where there is am assive circulation of traffic vehicles and numerous outdoor social activities with aleisure noise mainly composed by human-related sounds. Due to the apparent differences between human-related sounds and road trafficsounds, the descriptors used to approach aproper evaluation of leisure noise may not be the same as the ones used for road trafficnoise evaluation. This paper is aimed at analyzing the road trafficand leisure noise characteristics and the most important parameters to study and evaluate both noise sources. Therefore, as usually both noise sources are mixed, amodel has been developed and tested which, when provided an environmental noise measurement, will be able to identify what kind of noise (leisure or road trafficnoise)isdominant in agiven environment. This model, done by using Support Ve ctor Machines (SVMs)a nd Regression Analysis algorithms, allows focusing the abatement actions towards the noise source identified as dominant, and thus, addressing abetter management and aproper control of the environmental noise in urban environments.

Social cues, such as eye gaze and pointing fingers, can increase the prioritisation of specific locations for cognitive processing. A previous study using a manual reaching task showed that, although both gaze and pointing cues altered target prioritisation (reaction times [RTs]), only pointing cues affected action execution (trajectory deviations). These differential effects of gaze and pointing cues on action execution could be because the gaze cue was conveyed through a disembodied head; hence, the model lacked the potential for a body part (i.e., hands) to interact with the target. In the present study, the image of a male gaze model, whose gaze direction coincided with two potential target locations, was centrally presented. The model either had his arms and hands extended underneath the potential target locations, indicating the potential to act on the targets (Experiment 1), or had his arms crossed in front of his chest, indicating the absence of potential to act (Experiment 2). Participants reached to a target that followed a nonpredictive gaze cue at one of three stimulus onset asynchronies. RTs and reach trajectories of the movements to cued and uncued targets were analysed. RTs showed a facilitation effect for both experiments, whereas trajectory analysis revealed facilitatory and inhibitory effects, but only in Experiment 1 when the model could potentially act on the targets. The results of this study suggested that when the gaze model had the potential to interact with the cued target location, the model's gaze affected not only target prioritisation but also movement execution.