Appraising the Sonic Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Perceptual, Computational, and Cognitive Requirements
Abstract
1. Introduction
- Enactive cognition and core cognition: Enactive cognition (which postulates that all cognition arises from real-world interaction) and core cognition (the hypothesized cognition shared by all of life) (Andringa et al., 2015; Andringa & Denham, 2021; Denham & Andringa, 2021) form a suitable framework for understanding hearing and suggest a quadrant structure of mental states. Both frameworks stress the importance of perception–action relations, agency, and sense-making. Soundscape appraisal is a sense-making process (van den Bosch et al., 2018).
- Properties of sound: The physics of sound production and propagation (Andringa, 2010; Gaver, 1993a) makes it ideal to monitor events in the proximal environment omnidirectionally, and it points to algorithmic approaches to auditory stream segregation.
- Audition = hearing + listening: The pre-attentive hearing process produces soundscape appraisal, including saliency indicators that activate and orient the listening process for attentive, detailed, and goal-oriented analysis (Andringa, 2010).
- Pre-attentive processing: Hearing is intimately interwoven with other subcortical functions, such as mustering and reorienting attentional resources (Harding et al., 2007), arousal, and estimating threat and safety (Porges, 2022). It contributes to a mood-level appraisal of the (sonic) environment known as the core affect (Russell, 2003).
- Source physics: The structures that physical limitations of sound sources impose on their sounds allow for robust evidence estimation (Andringa, 2002), source classification, and perceptual constancy despite transmission effects. Source physics and other environmental regularities underlie predictive coding (Bendixen, 2014). Source physics also conveys whether the sound production system is free to produce a normal variant of its source or is under stress, distorting the sound away from the norm (van Hengel & Andringa, 2007).
- From sound to sounds: Recognizing individual sources requires the transition from undifferentiated sound to individual sounds (Andringa, 2010) that can be attended to and further divided or regrouped into source-specific auditory streams. This categorization process imposes many severe constraints on auditory processing.
- Primitive auditory scene analysis: This process creates auditory events and streams of information about individual (and concurrent) sound-producing events (Bregman, 1994). It relies heavily on tracking whatever structure source physics imposes on the produced signal. Violated expectations about this development are typically assumed to be caused by another (new) source (Bendixen et al., 2013). This is a manifestation of the old-plus-new heuristic (Bregman, 1994) that reoccurs throughout this paper.
- Noise: Noise results from initial meaning-giving on a pleasant/unpleasant axis, and it is a valence-related form of sense-making (Andringa & Lanser, 2013).
- 9.
- Loudness: Loudness weighs the importance of the auditory channel compared to other senses and priorities (Andringa & Lanser, 2013).
- 10.
- Audibility: This measures how far (in dB) a signal component is above the local background and how easily the component musters the cognitive resources necessary for a meaningful analysis (Allen, 1994).
- 11.
- Audible safety: Estimating audible safety is a reason d’être of audition in determining whether one is free to self-select activities or be forced to be vigilant (Andringa & Lanser, 2013; van den Bosch, 2015; Kosters et al., 2022, 2023). This leads again to a quadrant structure.
- 12.
- HiFi and LoFi soundscapes: This distinction, which originated from soundscape pioneer Shafer (Schafer, 1977), relates directly to how easily an auditory scene can be analyzed and safety estimated due to the presence of sufficient and easily estimated signal components.
- 13.
- Processing up to the level of estimated irrelevance: The hearing process must apply a strategy of processing sensory input up to the level of estimated irrelevance (in terms of audible safety and valence). Auditory streams need to be processed further until their irrelevance can be estimated. When the hearing process does not estimate irrelevance, the listening process will be tasked with additional analysis.
- 14.
- Noise sensitivity: This prioritizes the auditory channel with respect to the other sensory channels. Multiple forms of noise sensitivity exist: one for louder sounds far away and the other for subtle sounds close by (Job, 1999). A third form results from developing source-specific detection expertise, especially in noise-annoyed individuals.
- 15.
- Auditory gist: The hearing process does not produce a full analysis; instead, it produces a basic categorization called the auditory gist (Harding et al., 2007), suitable for activating situationally appropriate behaviors, kick-starting (bootstrapping) the listening processes, and holistically evaluating the auditory environment.
- 16.
- Four types of attention: The hearing process facilitates (and impedes) four different forms of attention: fascination (Kaplan, 1995), free-roaming directed attention (flow) (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), distracted attention (Nagaraj, 2021; Salo et al., 2017), and undirected attention (Eastwood et al., 2012; Raffaelli et al., 2018).
- 17.
- Perceptual layers: Different sound sources’ temporal properties (an aspect of source physics) drive the activation of these forms of attention, leading to perceptual layers (by applying the old-plus-new heuristic) and appraisals associated with individual sources and the sonic environment as a whole.
- 18.
- Soundscape and sound appraisal: A more precise definition of soundscape is used to define sound appraisal as describing “the character of the acoustic environment” (Aletta, 2023).
- 19.
- Properties of the perceptual layers: We combine the time scale of vocalization with the requirements of estimating audible safety to derive a link between signal content and sound appraisal.
- 20.
- Sound appraisal estimation combines evidence indicative of each of the appraisal quadrants on a per-second (moment-to-moment) basis.
- 21.
- Sonic climate estimation: Sound appraisals are aggregated across time to provide a simple and informative (quadrant-based) graphical depiction of the characteristic of the auditory environment that is generally stable over time.
- 22.
- Measuring annoyance likelihood: This addresses an informal, but useful, result derived from multiple interactions with community-sound annoyance issues.
2. Context and Requirements
2.1. Enactive Cognition and Core Cognition
2.2. Properties of Sound
2.3. Audition = Hearing + Listening
2.4. Pre-Attentive Processing
2.5. Source Physics
2.6. From Sound to Sound
2.7. Primitive Auditory Scene Analysis
2.8. Noise
3. Core Features of the Hearing Process
3.1. Loudness
3.2. Audibility
3.3. Audible Safety
3.4. HiFi and LoFi Sounds
3.5. Processing up to the Level of Estimated Irrelevance
3.6. Noise Sensitivity
3.7. Auditory Gist
3.8. Four Types of Attention
3.9. Perceptual Layers
4. Sound Appraisal Implementation
4.1. Soundscape and Sound Appraisal
4.2. Properties of the Perceptual Layers
- Second foreground layer: This perceptual layer contains mainly human and animal vocalizations and indicates audible safety through relaxed vocalizations. Small animals like birds and insects generally produce high frequencies (>2300 Hz) and contribute to a calm and relaxing evaluation, while human vocalizations, especially in a social context, contribute to a lively/vibrant evaluation. Much of music is also captured by this time constant. Indications of sound production under stress (like sharp onset, a flatter spectrogram, and high pitch for the type of sound) may be indicative of a lack of safety and may contribute to a chaotic or unpleasant appraisal.
- Minute foreground layer: This contains sounds lasting longer than 1 s and developing faster than in 60 s. These sounds, albeit much slower, are still interpreted as changing and developing. This layer contains most passing traffic (cars, scooters, aircraft) and other events that (such as gusts of wind) typically have a broadband character and can mask or complicate the estimation of the audible safety indicators in the second foreground. These sounds are typically interpreted as distractors and lead to a chaotic interpretation.
- Hour foreground layer: This layer contains sounds that last longer than a minute and develop faster than in 1 h. These sounds have a more stationary character. This layer contains slower passages like a high-passing aircraft or the passage of a boat. The sounds of longer mechanical sounds, such as farmers working in their fields or the sound of a stationary truck, are typical. Weather events like rain showers are also likely to occur in this layer. This layer is the transition to events that appear stationary and generally contribute to a monotonous or impoverished evaluation.
- Hour background layer: This background layer contains sounds that remain constant for an hour or more and typically form a “stationary” daily (e.g., city) background. Often, this layer represents rather little energy because of silences between individual sounds. Without these silences, for example, near a busy highway, the hour background can be rather energetic, hence contributing to a monotonous or impoverished evaluation because local details in the second foreground are masked.
4.3. Sound Appraisal Estimation
4.4. Sonic Climate Estimation
4.5. Estimating Annoyance Likelihood
5. Reflections and Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | Despite this somewhat sloppy formulation as two separate processes, hearing and listening are highly integrated. Selective attention (listening) can modulate evoked otoacoustic emissions via hair cell influencing in the cochlea (Ciuman, 2010) (hearing). This entails that conscious processing is able to influence individual haircells in the auditory periphery. |
References
- Aletta, F. (2023, September 15). How do we define Soundscape? Forum Acusticum 2023, 10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association, Turin, Italy. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aletta, F., & Astolfi, A. (2018). Soundscapes of buildings and built environments. Building Acoustics, 25, 195–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aletta, F., Mitchell, A., Oberman, T., Kang, J., Khelil, S., Bouzir, T. A. K., Berkouk, D., Xie, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, R., Yang, X., Li, M., Jambrošić, K., Zaninović, T., van den Bosch, K., Lühr, T., Orlik, N., Fitzpatrick, D., Sarampalis, A., … Nguyen, T. L. (2024). Soundscape descriptors in eighteen languages: Translation and validation through listening experiments. Applied Acoustics, 224, 110109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, J. B. (1994). How do humans process and recognize speech? Speech and Audio Processing, 2(4), 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andringa, T. C. (2002). Continuity preserving signal processing [Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Faculty of Sciences]. Available online: https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/3083827/thesis.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Andringa, T. C. (2010). Audition: From sound to sounds. In W. Wang (Ed.), Machine audition: Principles, algorithms and systems (pp. 80–145). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andringa, T. C., & Denham, F. C. (2021). Coping and co-creation: One attempt and one route to well-being. Part 1. Conceptual framework. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 14(2), 152–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andringa, T. C., & Lanser, J. J. L. (2011a). Pleasurable and annoying sounds and how these impact on life. Available online: https://www.corecognition.com/pdf/Andringa-Denham_2021.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Andringa, T. C., & Lanser, J. J. L. (2011b, September 4–7). Towards causality in sound annoyance. Inter-Noise 2011 (pp. 1–8), Osaka, Japan. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235967942_Towards_Causality_in_Sound_Annoyance (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Andringa, T. C., & Lanser, J. J. L. (2013). How pleasant sounds promote and annoying sounds impede health: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(4), 1439–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andringa, T. C., & Pals, C. (2009, July 29–August 1). Detection and recognition threshold of sound sources in noise. CogSci 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt32g5j49v/qt32g5j49v_noSplash_2fe10daf784138893d6843b69a6f9f8e.pdf?t=op2jyc (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Andringa, T. C., & Roelofsen, E. (2020). Trends in geluidshinderbestrijding. Geluid, 1, 44–46. [Google Scholar]
- Andringa, T. C., van den Bosch, K. A. M., & Vlaskamp, C. (2013). Learning autonomy in two or three steps: Linking open-ended development, authority, and agency to motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andringa, T. C., van den Bosch, K. A. M., & Wijermans, N. (2015). Cognition from life: The two modes of cognition that underlie moral behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(362), 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axelsson, O. (2010, June 13–16). May information load be the key dimension underlying soundscape perception? Inter-Noise 2010 (pp. 1–7), Lisbon, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
- Axelsson, O. (2011). Aesthetic appreciation explicated [Ph.D. thesis, Stockholm University]. [Google Scholar]
- Axelsson, O., Nilsson, M. E., & Berglund, B. (2010). A principal components model of soundscape perception. JASA, 128(5), 2836–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babisch, W. (2002). The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise and Health, 4(16), 1–11. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Baugh, A. T., Akre, K. L., & Ryan, M. J. (2008). Categorical perception of a natural, multivariate signal: Mating call recognition in túngara frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(26), 8985–8988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bendixen, A. (2014). Predictability effects in auditory scene analysis: A review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bendixen, A., Bohm, T. M., Szalárdy, O., Mill, R., Denham, S. L., & Winkler, I. (2013). Different roles of similarity and predictability in auditory stream segregation. Learning & Perception, 5(Suppl. S2), 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendixen, A., Schroger, E., & Winkler, I. (2009). I heard that coming: Event-related potential evidence for stimulus-driven prediction in the auditory system. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(6), 8447–8451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botteldooren, D., Andringa, T. C., Aspuru, I., Brown, A., Dubois, D., Guastavino, C., Kang, J., Lavandier, C., Nilsson, M. E., Preis, A., & Fortkamp, B. S. (2015). From sonic environment to soundscape. In Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment (pp. 17–41). Soundscape and the Built Environment. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botteldooren, D., Lavandier, C., Preis, A., Dubois, D., Aspuru, I., Guastavino, C., Brown, L., Nilsson, M. E., & Andringa, T. C. (2011). Understanding urban and natural soundscapes. pp. 1–8. Available online: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2041806/file/2041808.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Bregman, A. S. (1994). Auditory scene analysis. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bronkhorst, A. (2000). The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica-Acta Acoustica, 86, 117–128. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, A. (2008). Evolution of brains, cognition, and consciousness. Brain Research Bulletin, 75(2–4), 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cain, R., Jennings, P., & Poxon, J. (2011). The development and application of the emotional dimensions of a soundscape. Applied Acoustics, 74(2), 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherry, C., & Bowles, J. (1960). Contribution to a study of the “cocktail party problem”. JASA, 32(7), 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciuman, R. R. (2010). The efferent system or olivocochlear function bundle—Fine regulator and protector of hearing perception. International Journal of Biomedical Science: IJBS, 6(4), 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobussen, M., & Andringa, T. C. (2024). Een geluidsbelevingsonderzoek naar de radarpost in Wier (p. 62). Sound Studies Center, Universiteit Leiden. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. (2015). Perceptual constancy. In M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombetti, G. (2010). Enaction, sense-making and emotion. In Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 145–164). MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, W. J., Adams, M. D., Bruce, N. S., Cain, R., Carlyle, A., Cusack, P., Hall, D. A., Hume, K. I., Irwin, A., Jennings, P., Marselle, M., Plack, C. J., & Poxon, J. (2013). Perception of soundscapes: An interdisciplinary approach. Applied Acoustics, 74(2), 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denham, F. C., & Andringa, T. C. (2021). Coping and co-creation: One attempt and one route to well-being. Part 2. Application to identity and social well-being. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 14(3), 217–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Earl, B. (2014). The biological function of consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, J. C., Irvine, K. N., Bicknell, J. E., Hayes, W. M., Fernandes, D., Mistry, J., & Davies, Z. G. (2021). Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 143095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friston, K., & Kiebel, S. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1211–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froese, T., & Ziemke, T. (2009). Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3–4), 466–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaver, W. W. (1993a). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaver, W. W. (1993b). What in the world do we hear?: An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, M., & Oliva, A. (2009a). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 137–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, M., & Oliva, A. (2009b). The briefest of glances. Psychological Science, 20(4), 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griefahn, B., Bröde, P., Marks, A., & Basner, M. (2008). Autonomic arousals related to traffic noise during sleep. Sleep, 31(4), 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grothe, B. (2020). The auditory system function—An integrative perspective. In The senses: A comprehensive reference (pp. 1–17). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harding, S., Cooke, M., & König, P. (2007). Auditory gist perception: An alternative to attentional selection of auditory streams? In E. R. L Paletta (Ed.), Attention in cognitive systems. Theories and systems from an interdisciplinary viewpoint, 4th international workshop on attention in cognitive systems, WAPCV 2007 Hyderabad, India, January 8, 2007 revised selected papers (Vol. 4840, pp. 399–416). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harnad, S. (2003). Categorical perception. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 448–452). Nature Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
- Haykin, S., & Chen, Z. (2005). The cocktail party problem. Neural Computation, 17(9), 1875–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO. (2014). Acoustics–Soundscape—Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework (ISO 12913-1:2014). International Organization for Standardization. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/52161.html (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Jaegher, H., & Paolo, E. A. D. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jesus, P. (2018). Thinking through enactive agency: Sense-making, bio-semiosis and the ontologies of organismic worlds. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 861–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Job, R. (1999). Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reaction to noise. Noise and Health, 1(3), 57–68. [Google Scholar]
- Joseph, R. (2011). Brainstem and cerebellum: Medulla, pons, midbrain, reticular formation, arousal, vision, hearing, norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, sleeping, dreaming, REM, cranial nerves, motor control. University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, J. (2007). Urban sound environment. Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, J., Aletta, F., Gjestland, T. T., Brown, L. A., Botteldooren, D., Fortkamp, B. S., Lercher, P., van Kamp, I., Genuit, K., Fiebig, A., Coelho, J. L. B., Maffei, L., & Lavia, L. (2016). Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Building and Environment, 108, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kooij, J. F. P., Liem, M. C., Krijnders, J. D., Andringa, T. C., & Gavrila, D. M. (2016). Multi-modal human aggression detection. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 144, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosters, J., Janus, S. I. M., Bosch, K. A. V. D., Zuidema, S., Luijendijk, H. J., & Andringa, T. C. (2022). Soundscape optimization in nursing homes through raising awareness in nursing staff with MoSART+. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 871647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosters, J., Janus, S. I. M., Van Den Bosch, K. A., Andringa, T. C., Hoop, E. O., De Boer, M. R., Elburg, R. A. J., Warmelink, S., Zuidema, S. U., & Luijendijk, H. J. (2023). Soundscape awareness intervention reduced neuropsychiatric symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized trial with MoSART+. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 24(2), 192–198.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuppens, P., Champagne, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2012). The dynamic interplay between appraisal and core affect in daily life. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahey, B. B., Applegate, B., Hakes, J. K., Zald, D. H., Hariri, A. R., & Rathouz, P. J. (2012). Is there a general factor of prevalent psychopathology during adulthood? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippmann, R. (1997). Speech recognition by machines and humans. Speech Communication, 22(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, J. E., Ljung, R., Nöstl, A., Threadgold, E., & Campbell, T. A. (2015). Failing to get the gist of what’s being said: Background noise impairs higher order cognitive processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzel, D., Fastl, H., Graf, R., & Hellbrück, J. (2008). Influence of vehicle color on loudness judgments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 2477–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagaraj, N. K. (2021). Effect of auditory distraction on working memory, attention switching, and listening comprehension. Audiology Research, 11(2), 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliva, A. (2005). Gist of a scene. In G. Rees, L. Itti, & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of attention (pp. 251–256). Elsevier Academic Press. Available online: http://olivalab.mit.edu/Papers/Oliva04.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Paolo, E. A. D., Rohde, M., Jaegher, H. D., & Sussex, U. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction towards a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 34–87). MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Paolo, E. A. D., & Thompson, E. (2014). The enactive approach (L. Shapiro, Ed.; pp. 1–14). The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J., Chung, S., Lee, J., Sung, J. H., Cho, S. W., & Sim, C. S. (2017). Noise sensitivity, rather than noise level, predicts the non-auditory effects of noise in community samples: A population-based survey. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, S. R. (2009). Soundscapes within urban parks: Their restorative value [Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester]. [Google Scholar]
- Payne, S. R. (2010). Urban sustainability, psychological restoration and soundscapes. In V. Corral-Verdugo, C. H. García-Cadena, & M. Frais-Amenta (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and applications (pp. 1–20). Nova Science Publishers Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Pijanowski, B. C., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., Dumyahn, S. L., Farina, A., Krause, B. L., Napoletano, B. M., Gage, S. H., & Pieretti, N. (2011). Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience, 61(3), 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porges, S. W. (2009). The polyvagal theory: New insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 76(Suppl. S2), S86–S90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porges, S. W. (2022). Polyvagal theory: A science of safety. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 16, 871227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raffaelli, Q., Mills, C., & Christoff, K. (2018). The knowns and unknowns of boredom: A review of the literature. Experimental Brain Research, 236(9), 2451–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedel, N., van Kamp, I., Dreger, S., Andringa, T. C., Payne, S. R., Schreckenberg, D., Fenech, B., Lavia, L., Notley, H., Guski, R., Simon, D., Köckler, H., Bartels, S., Weber, M., & Paviotti, M. (2021). Considering “non-acoustic factors” as social and environmental determinants of health equity and environmental justice. Reflections on research and fields of action towards a vision for environmental noise policies. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 11, 100445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, J. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salo, E., Salmela, V., Salmi, J., Numminen, J., & Alho, K. (2017). Brain activity associated with selective attention, divided attention and distraction. Brain Research, 1664, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. Alfred A. Knopf. [Google Scholar]
- Shamma, S., & Elhilali, M. (2020). Temporal Coherence Principle in Scene Analysis. In Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology. Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, G. T., Atkinson, E. A., Davis, H. A., Lamberty, P., & Oltmans, J. R. (2020). The general factor of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 75–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stansfeld, S. A., & Shipley, M. (2014). Noise annoyance, noise sensitivity and future risk of illness and mortality. Science of The Total Environment, 520, 114–119. [Google Scholar]
- Thaler, L., & Goodale, M. A. (2016). Echolocation in humans: An overview. WIREs Cognitive Science, 7(6), 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoret, E., Varnet, L., Boubenec, Y., Férriere, R., Tourneau, F.-M. L., Krause, B., & Lorenzi, C. (2020). Characterizing amplitude and frequency modulation cues in natural soundscapes: A pilot study on four habitats of a biosphere reserve. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(5), 3260–3274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Bosch, K. A. M. (2015). Safe and sound. Available online: https://research.rug.nl/files/24287451/Complete_thesis.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- van den Bosch, K. A. M., & Andringa, T. C. (2014). The effect of sound sources on soundscape appraisal. pp. 1–8. Available online: https://soundappraisal.eu/pdf/Bosch_2014.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- van den Bosch, K. A. M., Vlaskamp, C., Andringa, T. C., Post, W. J., & Ruijssenaars, W. A. J. J. M. (2015). Examining relationships between staff attributions of soundscapes and core affect in people with severe or profound intellectual and visual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 41(1), 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Bosch, K. A. M., Welch, D., & Andringa, T. C. (2018). The evolution of soundscape appraisal through enactive cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Hengel, P. W. J., & Andringa, T. C. (2007, September 5–7). Verbal aggression detection in complex social environments. 2007 IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (pp. 15–20), London, UK. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C. C. (2023). Promoting effect of urban landscape forests on emotional health: A study based on physiology and self-report. Available online: https://review.frontiersin.org/review/1346859/13/78082 (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- WHO. (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise. World Health Organization. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326424/9789289002295-eng.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., Mill, R., Bohm, T. M., & Bendixen, A. (2012). Multistability in auditory stream segregation: A predictive coding view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B—Biological Sciences, 367(1591), 1001–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Layer | Value Range | Freq. Range | Quadrant | Scope |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hour background | 30–70 dB(A) | 20–23,000 Hz | Boring | 1 s |
Hour foreground | 0–20 dB | 20–2300 Hz 2300–23,000 Hz | Boring Center | 1 s |
Minute foreground | 0–15 dB | 20–23,000 Hz | Chaotic | 1 s |
Second foreground | 0–20 dB | 20–2300 Hz 2300–23,000 Hz | Calm Lively | 5 s |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Andringa, T.C. Appraising the Sonic Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Perceptual, Computational, and Cognitive Requirements. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060797
Andringa TC. Appraising the Sonic Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Perceptual, Computational, and Cognitive Requirements. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(6):797. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060797
Chicago/Turabian StyleAndringa, Tjeerd C. 2025. "Appraising the Sonic Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Perceptual, Computational, and Cognitive Requirements" Behavioral Sciences 15, no. 6: 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060797
APA StyleAndringa, T. C. (2025). Appraising the Sonic Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Perceptual, Computational, and Cognitive Requirements. Behavioral Sciences, 15(6), 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060797