Sound People Speak to Star People–A sound experts’ perspective on astronomy sonification projects

« Sound people speak to Star people – A sound experts’ perspective on astronomy  sonification projects »  

N. Misdariis(a), E. Özcan(b), M. Grassi(c), S. Pauletto(d), S. Barrass(e), R. Bresin(d), P. Susini(a) 

(a) STMS Ircam-Cnrs-SU, Paris, France 

(b) Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (c) Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy 

(d) Dept of Media Technology and Interaction Design – School of Electrical Engineering and  Computer Science – KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (e) , Canberra, Australia 

nature astronomy 

Received: 18 July 2022 

Accepted: 3 October 2022 

Published online: 11 November 2022


The Audible Universe project aims at making dialogue between two scientific domains investigating two distinct research objects, briefly said, Stars and Sound. It has been instantiated  within a collaborative workshop that started to mutually acculturate both communities, by sharing  and transmitting respective knowledge, skills and practices. One main outcome of this exchange  was a global view on the astronomical data sonification paradigm that allowed to observe either  the diversity of tools, uses and users (including visually-impaired people), but also the current  limitations and potential ways of improvement. From this perspective, the current paper presents  basic elements gathered and contextualised by sound experts in their respective fields (sound  perception / cognition, sound design, psychoacoustics, experimental psychology), in order to  anchor sonification for astronomy in a more well-informed, methodological and creative process. 


Despite the fact that we are all basically blind to the Universe, astronomers have nearly always  opted to represent the data collected with visual images. However, taking advantage of the  capacity of audition to complement or supplement vision, different sonification approaches have  been recently built for different goals (e.g., education or research) and audiences (e.g., 

astronomers or amateurs, Blind-Visually Impaired (BVI) or sighted persons). In this attempt to dialogue between two specific scientific fields – astronomy and sound – it is desirable to come  up with shared knowledge, co-constructed ideas, relevant tools and, at the end, evaluation  guidelines that should be as general, comprehensive and efficient as possible, although potentially dependent on the nature of the goals and/or the audiences. 

The present paper, written by sound design/perception experts, reports on what they saw and  understood of current astronomy sonification projects during an interdisciplinary workshop. It  aims to strengthen this interdisciplinary dialogue by providing practical advices on how the  astronomy community could draw upon the expertise of the sound community to make progress  in the approach of listening to the Universe, instead of, or in addition to, just watching it. 

1. Context of the Perspective 

1.1 A participatory workshop as research framework 

The ‘Audible Universe’ aims to establish a collaborative framework to share and develop  knowledge, ideas and applications concerning sonification in astronomy. It was initiated by a  (remote) workshop in 2021 where nearly 50 experts from different scientific disciplines related to  astronomy and sound met and worked together11. During the workshop ‘Star people’ and ‘Sound 

people’ shared their respective expertise in an acculturation process of collaborative evaluation  and design. The process provided a basis for further developing data sonification as a technique  in the handling of astronomical data – whilst also addressing the accessibility issue for the BVI  community which is another key concern of the ‘Audible Universe’ framework.

The experts in astronomy broadly described the specific nature of astronomical data (light curve,  spectrum, image, time series, etc.), together with some of the main astronomy-focused  sonification tools that are already currently used by researchers in that domain22. Detailed information about five of these tools was presented: 

AstreOs ( a stargazing multi-sensorial astronomy application based on a  standardized visualizer in astronomy – Aladin ( – associated with a  sound synthesis engine that mainly maps the brightness value of the RGB components of an  image to pure tone audio and haptic clicks, with an additional spatial rendering functionality. 

Starsound ( a standalone application that  generically maps any kind of astronomical data to the basic audio dimensions (frequency,  intensity, duration) of different types of sound (pure tones, pulses, MIDI (Musical Instrument  Digital Interface) instruments). 

SonoUno ( another generic application developed  methodologically in a designerly way (functionality and ergonomics), based on basic audio  parameters (frequency, amplitude and instrument type) ; with an additional screen reader that  uses the speech based auditory user interface technique3

A4BD ( a didactic application that teaches the use of haptic vibrations  to detect different kinds of edges and shapes (square, triangle, circle, etc.), and audio to detect  the colors of an image (hues map to pitches / musical notes and lightness to loudness).Afterglow access ( an online application  associated with a sky viewer tool (Skynet Robotic Telescope Network) with the main goal to  identify and locate targets of interest (e.g., a star in an image) or observe other astronomical  information (eg. track saturation). The application is built on the model of a reading head that  parses the 2D-image as a two-dimensional mapping to audio (time and frequency). 

Then, in turn, sound experts described the fundamentals of sound design, sonification, sound  perception and psychoacoustics. This basic sonic knowledge provides a shared ‘toolkit’ for  analysis, creation and validation in further collaborative works. Three structural questions,  formally based on a conventional 3-step design / sound design process4, were used to motivate  discussions between Sound people and Star people: 

1. What can we learn from the existing tools, in terms of sound perception and, more largely,  sound experience? 

2. Where could we be heading, in terms of designing improved or even new sonification  tools? 

3. How can we evaluate the usefulness, usability and even desirability5, 6 of existing tools? 1.2 Outcomes of the first workshop edition 

This paper presents the issues that were raised during the Audible Universe workshop, and  pointed out during several Question and Answer (Q&A) sessions and discussions7. The  perspective of the sound experts on sonification in astronomy applications is presented as an  action grid that summarises the issues and outcomes raised during the live plenary Q&A sessions  and later collective discussions. 

In summary, the various following key notions, and questions, appear to be definitely noteworthy. Universality. Could sonification be inserted into a universal design paradigm by taking into  account nature and diversity of its audience, but also by considering feasible solutions for both  visually-impaired and sighted people?

Standardization. Could sonification standards, or guidelines, for astronomical data be required,  and in any case, how could it be compatible with a certain level of customization able to ensure  adaptability? 

Skepticism. What would be the right way to overcome a latent skepticism: better understand the  uses and users, propose evidence-based design, raise awareness on the added-values of sound  (e.g., by a gamification approach)? 

Multimodality. How could we complement the sound medium with other rendering modalities  such as spatiality or haptics, or even through the tangibility of a 3D-printed mediation object8 ? Analogy. Could we consider the Universe as a complex sound scene, and therefore transpose  Auditory Scene Analysis paradigms such as grouping/segregation9, or acoustic ecology  concepts such as acoustic niches10,11 (spectro and/or temporal zones in sound spectrum where  acoustic energy is preferably located)? 

Prototypicality. Could (a certain form of) sonification be seen at a ‘quick and dirty process’ for  auditorily monitoring astronomical data, as visual representations could operate in some way? 

On another side, it is worth noting that some points relevant to fundamental of design were barely (or not at all) discussed but might however stay of major interest for future thoughts and works (they may be left aside due to lack of time, understanding, reference in the domain, …). These  include emotions, multiculturality, interactivity, training, and importantly artificial intelligence. 

2. From Sound Perception to Sound Experience 

2.1 Basics of sound perception and cognition 

Although we can perceive sounds when dreaming or via direct stimulation of our brain, in the  majority of cases sound sensation begins when a physical sound wave sets into vibration the  eardrum. The human sensation of sounds unfolds along three dimensions (plus one). The first dimension is pitch that is related to the sound’s frequency so that sounds can be  perceived as low or high in pitch (note that auditory sensitivity to frequency ranges from ~20 and  even up to ~20000 Hz, depending of the age and hearing of the person). 

The second dimension is loudness that is related to the sound intensity so that sounds can be  perceived as more or less loud as a function of the physical intensity (although in some case  loudness and intensity may be partially independent). 

A third and more complex dimension is timbre (related to the sound’s spectrum composition and  its unfolding in time) that enables us to distinguish and recognize the different voices of a mixed  sound scene (e.g. a guitar from a piano) even when they are perceived as having the same pitch  and loudness. 

Sounds have also a subjective duration that is, strictly speaking, not a sensation exclusively  related to sound but shared by all our senses. 

In general terms, sound sensations are categorized in two: tones and noises. Tones give a clear  sensation of pitch (e.g., the human voice, the sound of a music instrument, the chirping of birds)  and can be concatenated in salient pitch patterns (e.g. melodies). Noises do not give a strong  sensation of pitch (e.g. the fan of the air conditioning) and can hardly produce salient pitch  patterns (e.g. melodies 12). Although sounds can be described in terms of pitch, loudness, etc.  we often describe them referring to the event that generated the sound and the types of materials  involved in the sound source (e.g., “hammer on an anvil”, “sound of a waterdrop”)13.

2.2 Extension to sound experience 

Daily experiences with sounds can be categorized as perceptual, cognitive and emotional  experiences14,15. 

In a perceptual experience, psychoacoustics plays an important role in determining how pleasant  a sound is: The sharper, louder, rougher, and noisier a sound is the more unpleasant it will be  perceived. Temporal aspects of the sound (i.e., duration, repetitiveness) also give rise to event  perception and its evolution (e.g., car approaching). Furthermore, sound provides cues regarding  the physical quality of its source (i.e., material, size, geometry and direction)16 

In a cognitive experience, listeners are able to semantically distinguish their experiences with  sounds and categorise them in terms of information regarding the sound event (i.e., source,  action, location) and its conceptual associations (e.g., adventurous, playful). In an emotional experience, the benefit/harm of the identified sound event to the task at hand is  assessed and a sound is appraised whether it signals a potential threat (e.g., fire alarm) or poses  opportunities for action (e.g., recognising the bike bell to move aside). 

However, not all sound experiences can fit in discrete categories and all experiences with sound  are contextual17, 18. While we may experience a sound perceptually unpleasant (e.g., a sharp and  loud sound of an espresso machine), the context can turn this perceptually unpleasant  experience into a functionally acceptable sound (i.e., all espresso machines produce such  sounds as a result of their mechanical construction) or even a desirable one by means of the  circumstantial associations (e.g., coffee machines endorsed by famous people) or cultural  connotations (e.g., pleasure of drinking coffee in Portugal). 

2.3 Analysis: sound experiences from existing tools 

Overall, when designing sounding objects, the sound creation process can borrow knowledge  from the object perception literature that analyses objects on feature, object and scene levels19,20.  Thus, designers can address the featural aspects of sound in order to give form to the sound  (e.g., an incrementally louder and repetitive sound can be perceptually salient by capturing  attention, can indicate the evolution of an event, and be perceived as alarming or thrilling).  However, designing these physical sound features should give rise to a meaningful whole that  can solely be identified as a sound object (e.g., audible notification as alarms or approaching  footsteps) and the sound object matches the scene it emerges in (e.g., medical care or game  world). A coherence between the three dimensions of object perception21 will pose less  perceptual/cognitive load on the user, as the sound and its fittingness to the designated function  or to its environment will be ensured and sound’s capacity to fulfill a user’s need will be achieved. 

As far as sonification of objects is concerned, all these sensations can be exploited to  communicate and represent quantities (as in data representation) and concepts (as messages to  be conveyed such as size, shape, materials). In doing this we map one domain (the auditory  sensation) onto another domain (e.g., luminances, sizes, etc.). Some associations are more  natural than others because these associations can be frequently observed in nature. For  example, in nature, low pitch sounds are usually associated with large objects whereas high pitch  sounds are usually associated with small objects22. Alternatively, the mapping can be arbitrary  and needs to be learnt: we can map pitch with distance (e.g., high pitch with large distance)  although in nature such a relation doesn’t exist. Pitch is perhaps the most investigated and  mapped sensation. The reason for this, is that humans are very sensitive to pitch variations (an 

ability that we can improve with practice) and remember pitch relationships very well. For  example, we can remember a sequence of pitches (i.e., a melody) after the first time we listen to  it, whereas we may forget immediately a sequence of loudnesses23. In addition, pitch (but also  loudness) has often a spatial connotation: we refer to pitch using the adjectives “high” and “low”  and this is done in the same way in several music cultures24

Astronomers could use sound experience as an approach when they want to create pleasant,  meaningful and contextual experiences when sonifying astronomical data (e.g., temperature  fluctuations in sun observations) and space objects (e.g., milkyway, planets, or galaxies as a  whole) or conveying a high-level concept (e.g., the stark beauty of a supernova). However, object  identification notion will help congruent acoustic mappings of data-to-sound and better  representations of space objects that fits a designated function, a space mission, or the research  agendas. 

3. From Sound Design to Sonic Information Design 

3.1 Basics of sound design and sonification 

Designing sounds means “to make an intention audible”25. A designed sound is new and  constructed, and it represents something other than the sound itself. This can be an object, a  concept, a dataset or a system. There are two intentions that need to be audible: form, which  relates to sound quality, and function, which relates to what the sound communicates. 

In sound design in general, the information portrayed needs to be clearly heard and correctly  interpreted for the design to be considered successful. The history of sound design can be traced  from Greek and Roman theatre to the development of new audio technology and media (radio,  television, cinema, games, virtual reality) in the 20th century which generated a great variety of  new methods for designing sounds. Recent research taps into this, and related knowledge and  creative practice, to inform new methods for functional sound design, such as sonic interaction  design and sonification26,27,28,29

The invention of the Geiger counter, at the beginning of the 20th century, is a well-known early  example of sonification. The further development of electronics, computers and digital  technology motivated the need for new ways to display and access information. Sonification is a type of auditory display and sound design that is defined as aiming to “transform  data relations into perceived relations in an acoustic signal for the purposes of facilitating  communication or interpretation”30. The goals include increased accessibility, monitoring of  dynamic processes, data mining, as well as the creation of new artistic experiences for  audiences. Applications can be found in assistive technologies31, health and environmental  science32,33,34,35,36, automotive engineering37, mobile computing38,39, intelligent alarms40,41,  technology-enhanced learning42, and many more fields. 

Auditory display techniques have been categorized as earcons (musical motifs)43, auditory icons  (everyday sounds)44, audification (playback of data series at audio rates)45, parameter mapping  (mapping data parameters to sound parameters such as loudness or pitch)46, and model-based  sonification (map the dataset to a digital model that can be excited to make sounds)47. More  recent methods include acoustic sonification (mapping the dataset to a 3D printed object that  makes sounds acoustically)48, and stream-based sonification (figure/ground gestalts that form  auditory scenes)49. Acoustic Sonification may be of particular interest to astronomers with visual 

impairment because the physical object made from the data can be picked up, felt and explored  by hand50. Stream-based Sonification uses psychoacoustic principles to group and segregate  data mapped into auditory scenes9 that are more like the sounds of the everyday world – thus,  being perceived and understood through experiences of everyday listening51 –, and that do not  rely on musical training to hear, analyse and comprehend52

3.2 Creation: innovative tools for astronomical data sonification 

The astronomy tools described in the first section use the parameter mapping technique where  data values are played as notes on a musical instrument. Computer music software makes it  easy to apply this technique using score-based interfaces. However, although this is a quick and  simple technique, short term auditory memory is only about 2-4 seconds long53 which makes it  difficult to answer questions about longer sequences of notes. 

SonoUno also uses the spearcon technique to support navigation of the user interface by Blind Visually Impaired (BVI) astronomers. Spearcons use sped up speech to represent menu items  and other parts of the interface, similar to the way screen readers can also use sped up text to  speech. There is potential for Earcons and Auditory Icons to also be used to support auditory  interfaces for BVI astronomers. Other techniques that have been explored by the data sonification  community may be applicable and useful in astronomy. Audification, as used by Alexander54 for  the Heliosphere, was employed to play the data at audio rates so that the human ear did the  spectral processing, rather than the computer – he found that human subjects were able to hear  spectral features that they could not detect in graphic visualisations. Fourier Transform, as used  by Sturm55,56, was employed to sonify spectral data from Ocean Buoys as short sounds with  different timbres. Spectral Audification, as used by Newbold57, is a similar technique for the  spectral analysis of chemicals. 

These examples demonstrate the potential for astronomers to audify spectral data as timbres  rather than note sequences, which may be more perceptually direct. Model-based sonification58 is another interesting technique that could be applied in astronomy. Thomas Hermann describes  one example, called a data sonogram, where the data points are mapped onto a simulated mass spring system, so for example stars in an image could be nodes in such a system. The user  initiates a shock wave that propagates spherically through the spring network which vibrates to  produce the sound of that configuration of stars. An Acoustic Sonification could be made by  mapping spectral values onto the parameters of a 3D shape that is 3D printed in a resonant metal  so that it vibrates acoustically. Datasets could be held and felt, and differences between entire  datasets could be heard immediately by tapping or scraping them. Many astronomical datasets  have a lot of noisy background. Stream-based Sonification techniques could be used to design  auditory scenes where where fast transients and weak signals perceptually emerge as auditory  figures from the noisy background. 

3.3 Extension to Sonic Information Design 

The design of a sonification to provide useful information requires more than the arbitrary  selection of a technique for mapping data into sound. Sonic Information Design is a user-centred  method that requires consideration of issues such as the type of data, user task, information  requirements, and audio display59. A designerly approach to sonification that includes stages of  ideation, rapid prototyping and evaluation has been developed further60. The Data Sonification 

Canvas provides a design-oriented approach that includes consideration of Users, Goals,  Context, Functionality, Ways of Listening and Type of Sound61,2

4. From Psychoacoustics to Sonification Evaluation 

4.1 Basics of psychoacoustics and experimental psychology 

Psychoacoustics is the discipline that studies the relationships between a sound parameter (e.g.,  sound level) and an associated auditory sensation (e.g., loudness) obtained by measurement with  human participants. In the present sub-section, methods are briefly presented. In the next sub section, questions related to astronomical data sonification that can be approached by these  methods are indicated. 

Traditional psychoacoustical methods are unidimensional, and can be implemented either via direct or indirect methods. 

Indirect methods are based on the measurement of thresholds (see method 1, in Table 1).  Absolute threshold is the minimum detectable intensity of the sensation, whereas differential  threshold is the smallest change in a sound to produce a Just-Noticeable Difference (JND). For  instance, the JNDs for fundamental frequency (related to pitch) and spectral centroid (related to  brightness) are of 0.8% and 4% respectively, for musicians, and 1.9% and 5% respectively62, for  non-musicians. The four usual methods to measure thresholds are the methods of constant  stimuli, limits, adjustment, and the adaptive method63

Direct scaling methods (see method 2) rely on the ability of participants to assign a number  proportional to their sensation, and at the end, the obtained relation expresses a direct sensation  ratio in relation to the physical parameter. For instance, for a 1-kHz tone, a 10-dB increase leads  to a doubling of the loudness64

For complex or real sounds, exploratory methods are usually adopted. They can be implemented  in three main paradigms: 

Dissimilarity ratings (see method 3) have been frequently adopted to investigate timbre of musical  sounds65,66 and environmental sounds67. Judgements are based on dissimilarity ratings among  pairs of sounds, which are then represented by distances in a low-dimensional space using a  Multidimensional scaling (MDS) technique. 

Semantic scales (see method 4) are frequently used to assess auditory attributes (loudness,  roughness, etc.) but also different psychological aspects of sounds such as appraisal judgments  (e.g., preference). Judgements are based on direct evaluations on a k-point scale (k being odd  and usually between 3 and 9) defined by a label (e.g., “dull – bright”). It is crucial that the  participants correctly understand the meaning of the labels. To overcome any misunderstanding,  a sound lexicon (‘words4sounds’) has been recently developed into the SpeaK environment 


Sorting and identification tasks (see methods 5&6) are very commonly used in cognitive  psychology to address the questions of identification and categorization of sound sources.  Listeners are required to sort a corpus of sounds and to group them into as many classes as they  want, or into a limited number of classes associated with labels in the case of an identification  task. The resulting data are usually formatted in hierarchical structures (dendrogram) that  represent clusters of sounds. Sorting tasks have been largely used to study the categorization of  everyday soundscapes68.

Finally, series of tests and analyses have been developed in the field of sound quality69 to  determine preference scales (see method 7). In addition, it should be emphasized that the  classical psychoacoustical methods have been broadly used to study the perception of short and  stationary sounds, however the fact a sound is time-based means the sonification is often more  effective when the user is tightly embedded within a real-time evaluation. In this case, methods  of continuous judgments can be considered (see method 8). 

4.2 Validation: perceptual evaluation of astronomical data sonification tools 

Most of the methods presented in the previous section are precisely detailed in [70]. In this  section, a list of specific questions related to the sonification of astronomical data is posed. These  questions could be used as reference and starting point to conceive the perceptual evaluation of  a specific astronomy-focused sonification tool. 

Table 1. Basic evaluation methods, derived from psychoacoustics paradigms, described in  Section 4.1. Each of the 8 methods belong to a certain methodological category: indirect or  direct measurements (resp., 1, 2), dissimilarity, semantic, sorting or identification tasks (resp., 3,  4, 5, 6), preference judgements (7) and – shared with some of the previous ones – continuous  evaluation along time (8). For each of these methods, the table contains examples of questions  that could be potentially addressed within a validation protocol dedicated to astronomical data  sonification tools



Question that can be answered



Can the user perceive differences between characteristics of  different astronomical objects? 

For example: Does the discrimination threshold on the auditory  dimension used for the sonification account for the perceived  change of a star brightness?

Scaling methods 

How should one auditory dimension vary for fitting the  characteristics of an astronomical object? 

For example: Does the ratio in the auditory dimension  correspond to the ratio of the depth of a transit in the light curve  (relates to the size of the object relative to the host star)?

Dissimilarity ratings 

What are the main differences between multidimensional sonified  astronomical objects? 

For example: If several characteristics of stars or galaxies are  sonified by sounds made of several parameters (loudness, pitch,  roughness, attack time, …), what are the most salient dimensions  for the comparison? Are they weighted similarly?

Semantic scales 

What are the auditory profiles related to different words  associated with different astronomical objects? 

For example: Stars could be evaluated and compared in terms of  sonic profiles; star #1 sounds bright, rough and continuous,  although star #2 sounds also bright and rough, but discontinuous,  which means unstable because of its internal structure.

Sorting tasks 

What is the most typical auditory configuration for a class of  astronomical objects? 

For example: What are the different and similar shapes of light  curves between several transits?

Identification tasks 

What are the sonic configurations that make it possible to classify  different types of astronomical objects? 

For example: What is the boundary between two sound  configurations that makes it possible to identify two different  chemical fingerprints (related to the presence or absence of  certain frequencies)? Does the boundary between two sound  configurations allow to distinguish between a U and V shape in a  transit light curve?

Preference scales 

Which is the preferred sound model for the sonification of a  specific astronomical object? 

For example: What is the preference between astronomical data  played slowly or quickly? What is the most pleasant/efficient  among different sonifications, as for example tones vs pulses to  explore a 2D spectroscopy?



Do users detect real-time changes in the sonification of relative  position of astronomical moving objects? 

For example: Is it possible to detect changes in the intensity of  light emitted by a galaxy by real-time continuous evaluation of its  sonification?


Finally, the interdisciplinary dialogue originally envisaged as a keystone of the Audible Universe  approach started to be established in a rather concrete and fruitful way. A common ‘playground’,  in which both communities – astronomers and sound scientists – brought their respective  expertise and know-how, was basically delimited as the frame of a collaborative sound design  process. 

In this regard, from what inspired them in relation to existing tools, sound experts gave multiple insights in order to possibly create different design propositions – among which some of them,  like acoustic sonification, could specifically be well adapted to inclusivity – and recommend  relevant evaluation paradigms in terms of astronomical data sonification. Actually, basic  knowledge in sound perception and cognition, sound design and sonification, and at last

psychoacoustics and perceptual evaluation has started to bring new concepts and methods in  the astronomy field, and furthermore to open new perspectives on how to observe, analyse,  represent or transmit astronomical data. 

But, as very often in the scientific domain, the Audible Universe workshop and its general  approach have opened up more questions than they have practically resolved. For sure, many  other forums and meetings will be required to address some issues raised during the first  discussions (universality, standardization, multimodality, etc.) but also those that have not been  explicitly formulated but are nonetheless of high importance, such as the role of emotions, the  attention to multiculturality or the reflection on artificial intelligence … to be continued! 


[1] Harrison, C., Zanella, A., Bonne, N., Meredith, K., and Misdariis, N. “Audible Universe”,  Nature Astronomy., 6, 22-23, (2021). 

[2] Zanella, A., Harrison, C. M., Lenzi, S., Cooke, J., Damsma, P., & Fleming, S. W. Sonification  and sound design for astronomy research, education and public engagement. Nature  Astronomy, 1-8, (2022). 

[3] Walker, B. N., Lindsay, J., Nance, A., Nakano, Y., Palladino, D. K., Dingler, T., & Jeon, M.  Spearcons (speech-based earcons) improve navigation performance in advanced auditory  menus. Human Factors, 55(1), 157-182, (2013). 

[4] Susini, P., Houix, O., & Misdariis, N. Sound design: an applied, experimental framework to  study the perception of everyday sounds. The New Soundtrack, 4(2), 103-121, (2014). 

[5] Jekosch, U. Assigning meaning to sounds—semiotics in the context of product-sound  design. In Communication acoustics, 193-221. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (2005). 

[6] Robare, P. Sound in Product Design (Doctoral dissertation, Master thesis in Interaction  Design. Pittsburgh, USA: Carnegie Mellon University School of Design, (2009). 

[7] Noel-Storr, J., & Willebrands, M. Accessibility in astronomy for the visually impaired. Nature  Astronomy, 1-3, (2022). 

[8] Barrass, S. Physical sonification dataforms. International Community for Auditory Display. (2011). 

[9] Bregman, A.S. Auditory Scene Analysis: the Perceptual Organization of Sound. The MIT  Press, Cambridge, MA. (1990). 

[10] Truax, B. Acoustic Communication. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing. (1984). 

[11] Sueur, J., & Farina, A. Ecoacoustics: the ecological investigation and interpretation of  environmental sound. Biosemiotics, 8(3), 493-502, (2015). 

[12] Plack, C. The sense of hearing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey, USA. (2005).

[13] Gaver, W.W. What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event  perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1-29, (1993). 

[14] Özcan, E., & van Egmond, R. Basic semantics of product sounds. International Journal of  Design, 6(2), (2012). 

[15] Özcan, E., Van Egmond, R., & Jacobs, J.J. Product sounds: Basic concepts and  categories. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 97-111, (2014). 

[16] Grassi, M., Pastore, M., & Lemaitre, G. Looking at the world with your ears: How do we get  the size of an object from its sound? Acta Psychologica, 143(1), 96-104, (2013). 

[17] Özcan, E. The Harley effect: Internal and external factors that facilitate positive experiences  with product sounds. Journal of Sonic Studies, 6(1), a07, (2014). 

[18] Delle Monache, S., Misdariis, N., Özcan, E. Semantic models of sound-driven design:  Designing with listening in mind. Design Studies, (2022 in process of publication) 

[19] Bar, M. Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 617-629, (2004). 

[20] De Graef, P., Christiaens, D., & d’Ydewalle, G. Perceptual effects of scene context on  object identification. Psychological research, 52(4), 317-329, (1990). 

[21] Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and  aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 489-508, (2004). 

[22] Grassi, M. Do we hear size or sound? Balls dropped on plates. Perception &  Psychophysics, 67(2), 274-284, (2005). 

[23] Clément, S., Demany, L., & Semal, C. Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness. The  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(5), 2805-2811, (1999). 

[24] Pitteri, M., Marchetti, M., Priftis, K., & Grassi, M. Naturally together: Pitch-height and  brightness as coupled factors for eliciting the SMARC effect in non-musicians. Psychological  Research, 81(1), 243-254, (2017). 

[25] Susini, P. Le design sonore: un cadre experimental et applicatif pour explorer la perception  sonore, Dossier d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Aix-Marseille II. (2011). 

[26] Selfridge, R., & Pauletto, S. (2022). Sound Design Ideation: Comparing Four Sound  Designers’ Approaches. In Proceed. of Sound and Music Computing Conference (2022). 

[27] Selfridge, R., & Pauletto, S. Investigating the sound design process: two case studies from  radio and film production, In Proceed. of Design Research Society Conference (2022). 

[28] Zattra, L., Misdariis, N., Pecquet, F., Donin, N., & Fierro, D. Practices and practitioners:  Outcomes from the apds project. In Proceed. of Sound Design Days (2019).

[29] Delle Monache, S., Misdariis, N. and Özcan, E. Conceptualising Sound-Driven Design: an  Exploratory Discourse Analysis. in Proceed. of Creativity and Cognition Conference (2021). 

[30] Kramer, G., Walker, B., Bonebright, T., Cook, P., Flowers, J.H., Miner, N., & Neuhoff, J.  Sonification Report: Status of the Field and Research Agenda. (2010). 

[31] Schaffert, N., Janzen, T. B., Mattes, K., & Thaut, M.H. A review on the relationship between  sound and movement in sports and rehabilitation. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 244, (2019). 

[32] Bevilacqua, F., Boyer, E.O., Françoise, J., Houix, O., Susini, P., Roby-Brami, A., &  Hanneton, S. Sensori-motor learning with movement sonification: perspectives from recent  interdisciplinary studies. Frontiers in neuroscience, 10, 385, (2016). 

[33] Walus, B.P., Pauletto, S., & Mason-Jones, A. Sonification and music as support to the  communication of alcohol-related health risks to young people. Journal on Multimodal User  Interfaces, 10(3), 235-246, (2016). 

[34] Barrass, S. Diagnosing blood pressure with Acoustic Sonification singing  bowls. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 85, 68-71, (2016). 

[35] Polli, A. Heat and the heartbeat of the city: sonifying data describing climate  change. Leonardo Music Journal, 16(1), 44-45, (2006). 

[36] Sawe, N., Chafe, C., & Treviño, J. Using data sonification to overcome science literacy,  numeracy, and visualization barriers in science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 5,  46, (2020). 

[37] Tardieu, J., Misdariis, N., Langlois, S., Gaillard, P., & Lemercier, C. Sonification of in-vehicle  interface reduces gaze movements under dual-task condition. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 41-49,  (2015). 

[38] Williamson, J., Murray-Smith, R., & Hughes, S. Shoogle: excitatory multimodal interaction  on mobile devices. In Proceed. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing  systems, 121-124, (2007). 

[39] Ahmetovic, D., Avanzini, F., Baratè, A., Bernareggi, C., Galimberti, G., Ludovico, L. A.,  Mascetti, S., & Presti, G. Sonification of rotation instructions to support navigation of people  with visual impairment. In Proceed. of IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing  and Communications (2019). 

[40] Graham, R. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle  collision avoidance application. Ergonomics, 42(9), 1233-1248, (1999). 

[41] McNeer, R.R., Horn, D.B., Bennett, C.L., Edworthy, J.R., & Dudaryk, R. Auditory icon  alarms are more accurately and quickly identified than current standard melodic alarms in a  simulated clinical setting. Anesthesiology, 129(1), 58-66, (2018).

[42] Danna, J., Fontaine, M., Paz-Villagrán, V., Gondre, C., Thoret, E., Aramaki, M., Kronland Martinet, R., Solvi, Y. & Velay, J.L. The effect of real-time auditory feedback on learning new  characters. Human movement science, 43, 216-228, (2015). 

[43] Rovithis, E., & Floros, A. AstroSonic: an educational audio gamification approach. In DCAC  Conference, Interdisciplinary Creativity in Arts and Technology, 116-123, (2018). 

[44] Bardelli, S., Ferretti, C., Ludovico, L. A., Presti, G., & Rinaldi, M. A Sonification of the zCOSMOS Galaxy Dataset. In Proceed. of International Conference on Human-Computer  Interaction, 171-188. Springer, Cham (2021). 

[45] Alexander, R.L., Gilbert, J.A., Landi, E., Simoni, M., Zurbuchen, T.H., & Roberts, D.A.  Audification as a diagnostic tool for exploratory heliospheric data analysis. In Proceed. of  International Conference on Auditory Display (2011). 

[46] Cooke, J., Díaz-Merced, W., Foran, G., Hannam, J., & Garcia, B. Exploring data sonification  to enable, enhance, and accelerate the analysis of big, noisy, and multi-dimensional data:  workshop 9. In Proceed. of the International Astronomical Union, 14(S339), 251-256, (2017). 

[47] Riber, A.G.. Planethesizer: approaching exoplanet sonification. Georgia Institute of  Technology, (2018). 

[48] Barrass, S. Digital Fabrication of Acoustic Sonifications. Journal of the Audio Engineering  Society, 60(9), 709-715, (2012). 

[49] Barrass, S. & Best, V. Stream-based Sonification Diagrams. In Proceed. of the International  Conference on Auditory Display (2008). 

[50] Barrass, S. Acoustic Sonification of Blood Pressure in the Form of a Singing Bowl. In  Proceed. of the Workshop on Sonification in Health and Environmental Data, University of York,  UK, (2014). 

[51] Gaver, W.W. How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological  psychology, 5(4), 285-313, (1993). 

[52] Barrass, S. & Zehner, B. Responsive Sonification of Well-logs. In Proceed. of the  International Conference on Auditory Display (2000). 

[53] Thaut, M.H. Musical echoic memory training (MEM). In M. H. Thaut & V. Hoemberg (Eds.),  Handbook of neurologic music therapy, 311–313, Oxford University Press (2014). 

[54] Alexander, R.L., O’Modhrain, S., Roberts, D. A., Gilbert, J.A., @ Zurbuchen, T.H. The Bird’s  Ear View of Space Physics: Audification as a Tool for the Spectral Analysis of Time Series Data. J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 119, 5259– 5271, (2014). 

[55] Sturm, B.L. Ocean Buoy Spectral Data Sonification: Research Update. In Proceed. of the  International Conference on Auditory Display (2003).

[56] Sturm, B.L. Pulse of an Ocean: Sonification of Ocean Buoy Data. Leonardo, 38(2), 143– 149, (2005). 

[57] Newbold, J.W., Hunt, A., & Brereton, J. Chemical Spectral Analysis Through Sonification. In  Proceed. of the International Conference on Auditory Display (2015). 

[58] Hermann, T. Model-Based Sonification (Chapt. 16). In Hermann, T., Hunt, A., & Neuhoff, J. G.  Eds. The sonification handbook, 399-425, Berlin: Logos Verlag, (2011). 

[59] Barrass, S. Sonic Information Design, Journal of Sonic Studies, Number 17, Society for  Artistic Research, (2018)., retrieved 30/05/2022 

[60] Lenzi, S., Terenghi, G., & Moreno-Fernandez-de-Leceta, A. A design-driven sonification  process for supporting expert users in real-time anomaly detection: Towards applied  guidelines. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, 7(23), e4-e4, (2020). 

[61] Lenzi, S. & Ciuccarelli, P. Data Sonification Canvas (Data Sonification Archive, 2022); 

[62] Allen, E.J., & Oxenham, A.J. Symmetric interactions and interference between pitch and  timbre. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3), 1371-1379, (2014). 

[63] Fechner, G.T. Elements of psychophysics, (1860). 

[64] Stevens, S.S. The measurement of loudness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of  America, 27(5), 815-829, (1955). 

[65] Grey, J.M. Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres. The Journal of the  Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1270-1277, (1977). 

[66] McAdams, S., Winsberg, S., Donnadieu, S., De Soete, G., & Krimphoff, J. Perceptual  scaling of synthesized musical timbres: Common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject  classes. Psychological research, 58(3), 177-192, (1995). 

[67] Misdariis, N., Minard, A., Susini, P., Lemaitre, G., McAdams, S., & Parizet, E. Environmental  sound perception: Metadescription and modeling based on independent primary studies.  EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 1-26, (2010). 

[68] Guastavino, C., Dubois, D., Cance, C., Coler, M., & Paté, A. Exploring  soundscapes. Sensory experiences: Exploring meaning and the senses, John Benjamins  Publishing, 139-167, (2021). 

[69] Susini, P., Lemaitre, G., & McAdams, S. Psychological measurement for sound description  and evaluation. In Measurement With Persons, Psychology Press, 241-268, (2013). 

[70] Giordano B., Susini P., & Bresin R. Experimental methods for evaluation and design of  sound-producing objects and interfaces. In Sonic Interaction Design Book, MIT press, (2013).


We are grateful to the Lorentz Center for supporting the organization of the Audible Universe  workshop in September 2021 and to the workshop participants for valuable and insightful  discussions 

Author contributions 

N.M. led the initiation, structuring and editing of this Perspective, the management of co-authors’  contributions and the writing of Context of this Perspective, Introduction and Conclusion. E.Ö.  and M.G. led the writing of From sound perception to sound experience, S.P. and S.B. led the  writing of From sound design to sonic information design and R.B. and P.S. led the writing of  From psychoacoustics to sonification evaluation. All co-authors participated in discussions about  the content, and provided comments on the initial manuscript and feedback for the revised  versions. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare no competing interests. 

End Matter  

Corresponding author. 

Name: Nicolas MISDARIIS 

Address : Ircam STMS Lab (Ircam-CNRS-SU-MinCult) 

1 Place Igor Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, France. 

Phone Nb.: +33 1 4478 1350. 


E-mail address:



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *