Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T13:54:52.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sound Bubble: A context-sensitive space in the space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2017

Martin Ljungdahl Eriksson ,
Ricardo Atienza  and
Lena Pareto
Martin Ljungdahl Eriksson*
Affiliation:
Media and Design, University West, 46132 Trollhättan, Sweden
Ricardo Atienza*
Affiliation:
Department of Fine Art, University College of Arts, Crafts and Design, 12627 Stockholm, Sweden
Lena Pareto*
Affiliation:
Media and Design, University West, 46132 Trollhättan, Sweden
*
Emails: martin@soundmark.se; lena.pareto@hv.se; ricardo.atienza@konstfack.se
Emails: martin@soundmark.se; lena.pareto@hv.se; ricardo.atienza@konstfack.se
Emails: martin@soundmark.se; lena.pareto@hv.se; ricardo.atienza@konstfack.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The design of sonic environments is in need of more active strategies, taking into account not only the physical but also the social and sensorial aspects of a place. This implies abandoning traditional, mono-disciplinary responses in favour of interdisciplinary methods and approaches. In this study we explored the possibility of inserting context-sensitive sound textures to improve the experience of an activity-based office workplace. For this purpose, we developed the concept of the ‘sound bubble’ – a micro-space in which the user is embedded by a semi-transparent added sound environment that will operate as a subtle sound mask, attracting the attention without needing to hide the disturbing environment. This should help users (the workers) to stay in an ‘everyday listening’ mode. This means, not focusing on the environment in particular but on their tasks, while preserving the link with the surrounding space and activities.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 22 , Special Issue 1: Context-based Composition , April 2017 , pp. 130 - 139
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amphoux, P. 1993. L’identité sonore des villes Européennes. Lausanne: CRESSON/IREC.Google Scholar
Atienza, R. and Billström, N. 2012. Fighting ‘Noise’ = Adding ‘Noise’? Active Improvement of High-speed Train Sonic Ambiances. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Ambiances: ‘Ambiances in Action’. International Congress on Ambiances, Montreal.Google Scholar
Augoyard, J.-F. and Torgue, H. (eds.) 2006. Sonic Experience: A Guide to Everyday Sounds. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Axelsson, Ö., Nilsson, M. E. and Berglund, B. 2010. A Principal Components Model of Soundscape Perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(5): 2836–2846.Google Scholar
Billström, N. and Atienza, R. 2012. Can We Improve Acoustic Environments by Adding Sound? Proceedings of the 41st International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering. New York, 19–22 August.Google Scholar
Bull, M. 2007. Sound Moves: iPod Culture and Urban Experience. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. L. and Pareto, L. 2015. Designing Activity-Based and Context-Sensitive Ambient Sound Environments in Open-Plan Offices. IRIS Selected Papers of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia. 2015:6, Paper 7. http://aisel.aisnet.org/iris2015/7 (accessed 16 November 2016).Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. L., Pareto, L. and Atienza, R. 2016. Sound Bubble: An Aesthetic Additive Design Approach to Actively Enhance Acoustic Office Environments. Proceedings of 13th Conference on Sound and Music Computing. Hamburg, 31 August–3 September.Google Scholar
Franinovic, K. and Visell, Y. 2008. Strategies for Sonic Interaction Design: From Context to Basic Design. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Auditory Display, Paris, 24–27 June.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. 1993. What in the World Do We Hear? An Ecological Approach to Auditory Event Perception. Ecological Psychology 5(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellström, B. 2003. Noise Design – Architectural Modelling and the Aesthetics of Urban Acoustic Space. Gothenburg: Bo Ejeby Förlag.Google Scholar
Hellström, B. 2005. Theories and Methods Adaptable to Acoustic and Architectural Design of Railway Stations. Twelfth International Congress on Sound and Vibration Lisbon, 11–14 July.Google Scholar
Kjellberg, A., Landström, U., Tesarz, M., Söderberg, L. and Åkerlund, E. 1996. The Effects of Non-physical Noise Characteristics, Ongoing Task and Noise Sensitivity on Annoyance and Distraction Due to Noise at Work. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16: 123–136.Google Scholar
Krueger, J. W. 2014. Affordances and the Musically Extended Mind. Frontiers in Psychology 4, Article 1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nassiri, P., Monazam, M., Dehaghi, B. F., Abadi, L. I. G., Zakerian, S. A. and Azam, K. 2013. The Effect of Noise on Human Performance: A Clinical Trial. The International. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 4: 87–95.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M. E., Alvarsson, J., Rådsten-Ekman, M. and Bolin, K. 2010. Auditory Masking of Wanted and Unwanted Sounds in a City Park. Noise Control Engineering Journal 58(5): 524–531.Google Scholar
Reybrouck, M. 2012. Musical Sense-making and the Concept of Affordance: An Ecosemiotic and Experiential Approach. Biosemiotics 5(3): 391–409.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traité des objets musicaux. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Schlittmeier, S. J. and Hellbrück, J. 2009. Background Music as Noise Abatement in Open‐plan Offices: A Laboratory Study on Performance Effects and Subjective Preferences. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23(5): 684–697.Google Scholar
Secchi, B. 2005. La città del XX secolo. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
Smith, S. E., Stephan, K. L. and Parker, S. P. 2004. Auditory Warnings in the Military Cockpit: A Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Sound Types (No. DSTO-TR-1615). Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Edinburgh (Australia) Air Operations Div.Google Scholar
Sridharan, D., Levitin, D. J., Chafe, C. H., Berger, J. and Menon, V. 2007. Neural Dynamics of Event Segmentation in Music: Converging Evidence for Dissociable Ventral and Dorsal Networks. Neuron 55: 521–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibaud, J.-P. 2010. A Sonic Paradigm of Urban Ambiences, Keynote presentation. Sound ACTSs, Conference on Sound Studies, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Truax, B. 2001. Acoustic Communication, 2nd edn. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Västfjäll, D. 2002. Influences of Current Mood and Noise Sensitivity on Judgments of Noise Annoyance. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 136: 357–370.Google Scholar

Eriksson supplementary material

Audio 1

Download Eriksson supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 2.8 MB

Eriksson supplementary material

Audio 2

Download Eriksson supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 2.2 MB

Eriksson supplementary material

Audio 3

Download Eriksson supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 1.9 MB

Eriksson supplementary material

Audio 4

Download Eriksson supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 2 MB