Open Access
Table 1.
Research questions and research hypotheses.
| 1 – In urban pockets exposed to road traffic noise, do short informational-attentional masking sound (IAMS) cues… |
| RQ1.1: …improve the existing soundscape perception of the visitors? |
| H1.1: The ratings of existing (CTRL) soundscape perception improve with the introduction of short IAMS cues. |
| RQ1.2: …improve the existing emotional salience of the visitors? |
| H1.2: The ratings of existing (CTRL) emotional salience improve with the introduction of short IAMS cues. |
| RQ1.3: …reduce the perceived noise annoyance of the visitors? |
| H1.3: The ratings of existing (CTRL) perceived noise annoyance reduce with the introduction of short IAMS cues. |
| 2 – In urban pockets exposed to road traffic noise, does the typology of short IAMS cues and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)… |
| RQ2.1: …affect differently the soundscape perception of the visitors? |
| H2.1: The soundscape perception ratings in the augmented scenarios are different with certain types of IAMS cues and/or SNR levels. |
| RQ2.2: …affect differently the emotional salience of the visitors? |
| H2.2: The emotional salience ratings in the augmented scenarios are different with certain types of IAMS cues and/or SNR levels. |
| RQ2.3: …affect differently the perceived noise annoyance of the visitors? |
| H2.3: The noise annoyance ratings in the augmented scenarios are different with certain types of IAMS cues and/or SNR levels. |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.