The Perceived Urgency of Speech Warnings: Semantics versus Acoustics

Abstract

The relationship between the semantics of words and the acoustics of the way they are spoken is explored. Actors spoke warning signal words in an urgent, nonurgent and monotone style, and participants rated the urgency of the words. Results showed effects for signal word and style of presentation. Acoustic analysis showed that the urgent words were spoken at higher frequency with a broader pitch range and were louder than the nonurgent or monotone words. These acoustic differences were used to synthesize artificial versions of signal words in urgent and nonurgent formats. The urgent words were rated as more urgent than the nonurgent words, a finding attributable to their differing acoustics. Within each speaking style the words were acoustically the same, yet effects for signal word were found, suggesting that semantics is also important in urgency perception. This research has implications for the design and implementation of speech warning systems, particularly those in which urgency mapping is required.

Speech Tactons Improve Speech Warnings for Drivers

“…Hellier et al [9] also found an influence of acoustics and speaking style in the ratings of urgency. Signal words spoken urgently created higher ratings compared to nonurgently, which in turn were higher compared to words spoken in a monotone manner.…”

“…before each L M and "Notice!" before each L L , since these words have shown to provide distinctively different urgency ratings in previous studies [2,9]. The resulting messages were "Danger!…”

Consistency of magnitude estimations with conceptual data dimensions used for sonification

“…In terms of applicability, Edworthy and her colleagues (e.g. Edworthy, Loxley, & Dennis, 1991;Hellier, Edworthy, & Dennis, 1993;Hellier, Edworthy, Weedon, Walters, & Adams, 2002) have repeatedly shown that designing warning sounds based on the results of magnitude estimation studies leads to predictable orderings of 'urgency', and therefore to better auditory warning systems. Guillaume, Pellieux, Chastres and Drake (2003) have recently argued that, at least in the case of warnings, in addition to acoustic variables, such as frequency or repetition rate, more cognitive factors need to be considered.…”

Sleep And Fire: Who Is At Risk And Can The Risk Be Reduced?

“…If a voice alarm is better than beeping, is a female voice better than a male voice? A female voice was chosen in the above studies because of research showing that a female voice was perceived as more urgent than a male voice by individuals when awake [37]. However, given that the low pitched T-3 was found to be as effective as the female voice [10] urgency may not be a critical factor in differential arousal from sleep.…”