Virtual Reality

, Volume 19, Issue 3–4, pp 181–200 | Cite as

On the validity of virtual reality-based auditory experiments: a case study about ratings of the overall listening experience

  • Michael Schoeffler
  • Jan Lukas Gernert
  • Maximilian Neumayer
  • Susanne Westphal
  • Jürgen Herre


In recent years, new developments have led to an increasing number of virtual reality (VR)-based experiments, but little is known about their validity compared to real-world experiments. To this end, an experiment was carried out which compares responses given in a real-world environment to responses given in a VR environment. In the experiment, thirty participants rated the overall listening experience of music excerpts while sitting in a cinema and a listening booth being in a real-world environment and in a VR environment. In addition, the VR system that was used to carry out the sessions in the VR environment is presented in detail. Results indicate that there are only minor statistically significant differences between the two environments when the overall listening experience is rated. Furthermore, in the real-world environment, the ratings given in the listening booth were slightly higher than in the cinema.


Virtual reality-based experiments Overall listening experience Convolution engine Oculus Rift 



The authors would like to thank Alexander Adami for taking pictures of the experiment apparatus and Marlene Röß for representing a participant in the pictures.


  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorial data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York. ISBN: 0-471-36093-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astheimer P (1993) What you see is what you hear-acoustics applied in virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1993 symposium on research frontiers in virtual reality, pp 100–107. ISBN: 0-8186-4910-0Google Scholar
  3. Bella F (2004) Driving simulation in virtual reality for work zone design on highway: a validation study. In: The second SIIV international congress, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkhout AJ, de Vries D, Vogel P (1993) Acoustic control by wave field synthesis. J Acoust Soc Am 93(5):2764–2778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blauert J (1997) Spacial hearing. The psychophysics of human sound localization. The MIT Press, Cambridge. ISBN: 978-262-02413-6Google Scholar
  6. Blauert J, Jekosch U (2012) A layer model of sound quality. J Audio Eng Soc 60(1/2):4–12Google Scholar
  7. Bossard C, Kermarrec G, Buche C, Tisseau J (2008) Transfer of learning in virtual environments: a new challenge? Virtual Real 12(3):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman DA, McMahan RP (2007) Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer 40(7):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cakmakci O, Rolland J (2006) Head-worn displays: a review. Journal of Disp Technol 2(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale. ISBN: 978-080-580283-2Google Scholar
  11. Cruz-Neira C, Sandin DJ, DeFanti TA, Kenyon RV, Hart JC (1992) The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun ACM 35(6):64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeFanti TA, Dawe G, Sandin DJ, Schulze JP, Otto P, Girado J, Kuester F, Smarr L, Rao R (2009) The StarCAVE, a third-generation CAVE and virtual reality optiportal. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(2):169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Broadcasting Union (2011) Practical guidelines for production and implementation in accordance with EBU R 128 (version 2.0). European Broadcasting Union, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Frechaud V (2013) Gui3D, v. 1.11Google Scholar
  15. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia G (2002) Optimal filter partition for efficient convolution with short input/output delay. In: Proceedings of the AES 113th conventionGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner WG (1994) Efficient convolution without input/output delay. J. Audio Eng Soc 127–136 (preprint 3897) Google Scholar
  18. Gilkey R, Anderson T (2014) Binaural and spatial hearing in real and virtual environments. Taylor & Francis, London. ISBN: 978-131-778026-7Google Scholar
  19. Gorzel M, Corrigan D, Kearney G, Squires J, Boland F (2012) Distance perception in virtual audio-visual environment. In: 25th UK conference of the audio engineering society: spatial audio in today’s 3D world, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR (2008) Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 95(9):1088–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hess W, Weishäupl J (2014) Replication of human head movements in 3 dimensions by a mechanical joint. In: Proceedings of the international conference on spatial audio (ICSA)Google Scholar
  22. Kozak JJ, Hancock PA, Arthur EJ, Chrysler ST (1993) Transfer of training from virtual reality. Ergonomics 36(7):777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhlen T, Assenmacher I, Lentz T (2007) A true spatial sound system for CAVE-like displays using four loudspeakers. In: Shumaker R (ed) Virtual reality, vol 4563. Springer, Berlin, pp 270–279. ISBN: 978-354-073334-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2004) Perception of self-motion and presence in auditory virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the presence, pp 252–258Google Scholar
  25. Lathi BP, Green RA (2014) Essentials of digital signal processing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN: 978-110-705932-0Google Scholar
  26. Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A (2012) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience (version 1.1). Qualinet, DagstuhlGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindau A, Maempel H, Weinzierl S (2008) Minimum BRIR grid resolution for dynamic binaural synthesis. J Acoust Soc Am 123(5):3498–3498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomis JM, Blascovich JJ, Beall AC (1999) Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31(4):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mershon DH, Desaulniers DH, Kiefer SA Jr, Amerson TL, Mills JT (1981) Perceived loudness and visually-determined auditory distance. Perception 10(5):531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller S, Massarani P (2001) Transfer-function measurement with sweeps. J Audio Eng Soc 49(6):443–471Google Scholar
  31. Novo P (2005) Auditory virtual environments. In: Blauert J (ed) Communication acoustics. Springer, Berlin, pp. 277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palomäki KJ, Tiitinen H, Mäkinen V, May JC, Alku P (2005) Spatial processing in human auditory cortex: the effects of 3D, ITD, and ILD stimulation techniques. Cogn Brain Res 24(3):364–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearson JL, Dollinger SJ (2004) Music preference correlates of jungian types. Personal Individ Differ 36(5):1005–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prince WF (1972) A paradigm for research on music listening. J Res Music Educ 20(4):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Psotka J (1995) Immersive training systems: virtual reality and education and training. Instr Sci 23(5–6):405–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pysiewicz A (2014) On the validity of web-based auditory perception experiments. Master’s thesis, TU BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose FD, Attree EA, Brooks BM, Parslow DM, Penn PR, Ambihaipahan N (2000) Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics 43(4):494–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rumsey F, Zielinski S, Kassier R, Bech S (2005) Relationships between experienced listener ratings of multichannel audio quality and naive listener preferences. J Acoust Soc Am 117(6):3832–3840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M (2005) From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat Rev Neurosci 6(6):332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandel TT, Teas DC, Feddersen WE, Jeffress LA (1955) Localization of sound from single and paired sources. J Acoust Soc Am 27:842–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schoeffler M, Herre J (2013) About the impact of audio quality on overall listening experience. In: Proceedings of the sound and music computing conference, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 48–53Google Scholar
  42. Schoeffler M, Herre J (2014a) Towards a listener model for predicting the overall listening experience. In: Proceedings of the audiomostly, Aalborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoeffler M, Herre J (2014b) About the different types of listeners for rating the overall listening experience. In: Proceedings of the sound and music computing conference, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  44. Schoeffler M, Hess W (2012) A comparison of highly configurable CPU- and GPU-based convolution engines. In: Audio engineering society convention no. 133, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoeffler M, Edler B, Herre J (2013a) How much does audio quality influence ratings of overall listening experience? In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on computer music multidisciplinary research (CMMR), pp 678–693, Marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoeffler M, Stöter F-R, Bayerlein H, Edler B, Herre J (2013b) An experiment about estimating the number of instruments in polyphonic music: a comparison between internet and laboratory results. In: Proceedings of the 14th international society for music information retrieval conference, Curitiba, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoeffler M, Adami A, Herre J (2014a) The influence of up- and down-mixes on the overall listening experience. In: Proceedings of the AES 137th convention, Los Angeles, CA, USA (preprint 9140) Google Scholar
  48. Schoeffler M, Conrad S, Herre J (2014b) The influence of the single/multi-channel-system on the overall listening experience. In: Proceedings of the AES 55th conference on spatial audio, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  49. Schoeffler M, Stöter F, Edler B, Herre J (2015) Towards the next generation of web-based experiments: a case study assessing basic audio quality following the itu-r recommendation bs.1534 (MUSHRA). In: 1st web audio conference, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  50. Schröder D, Wefers F, Pelzer S, Rausch D, Vorländer M, Kuhlen T (2010) Virtual reality system at RWTH Aachen University. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on room acoustics, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Australian Acoustical Society, NSW DivisionGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuemie MJ, van der Straaten P, Krijn M, van der Mast CA (2001) Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 4(2):183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seeber BU, Fastl H (2004) On auditory-visual interaction in real and virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 18th international congress on acoustics, pp 2293–2296, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  53. Silzle A, Strauss H, Novo P (2004) IKA-SIM: a system to generate auditory virtual environments. In: Audio engineering society convention no. 116 (preprint 6016) Google Scholar
  54. Stanney K (1995) Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way. In: Proceedings the virtual reality annual international symposium ’95. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 28–34Google Scholar
  55. Stanney KM, Mourant RR, Kennedy RS, Literature AROT (1998) Human factors issues in virtual environments: a review of the literature. Presence 7:327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stockham Jr TG (1966) High-speed convolution and correlation. In: Proceedings of the spring joint computer conference, April 26–28, pp 229–233. ACM, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. Sveistrup H, McComas J, Thornton M, Marshall S, Finestone H, McCormick A, Babulic K, Mayhew A (2003) Experimental studies of virtual reality-delivered compared to conventional exercise programs for rehabilitation. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 6(3):245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. The OGRE Team (2013) OGRE game engine, v. 1.9.0Google Scholar
  60. Torger A, Farina A (2001) Real-time partitioned convolution for ambiophonics surround sound. In: IEEE workshop on applications of signal processing to audio and acoustics, pp 195–198Google Scholar
  61. Väljamäe A, Larsson P, Västfjäll D, Kleiner M (2004) Auditory presence, individualized head-related transfer functions, and illusory ego-motion in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual workshop on presenceGoogle Scholar
  62. van Dam A, Laidlaw DH, Simpson RM (2002) Experiments in immersive virtual reality for scientific visualization. Comput Graph 26(4):535–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Västfjäll D (2003) The subjective sense of presence, emotion recognition, and experienced emotions in auditory virtual environments. Cyberpsychol Behav 6(2):181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vora J, Nair S, Gramopadhye AK, Duchowski AT, Melloy BJ, Kanki B (2002) Using virtual reality technology for aircraft visual inspection training: presence and comparison studies. Appl Ergon 33(6):559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Welch N, Krantz JH (1996) The world wide web as a medium for psychoacoustical demonstrations and experiments: experience and results. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28(2):192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Werner S, Siegel A (2011) Effects of binaural auralization via headphones on the perception of acoustic scenes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on auditory and audiological research (ISAAR), Nyborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  67. Werner S, Liebetrau J, Sporer T (2012) Audio–visual discrepancy and the influence on vertical sound source localization. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pp 133–139, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Witmer BG, Bailey JH, Knerr BW, Parsons KC (1996) Virtual spaces and real world places: transfer of route knowledge. Int J Hum Comput Stud 45(4):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Schoeffler
    • 1
  • Jan Lukas Gernert
    • 1
  • Maximilian Neumayer
    • 1
  • Susanne Westphal
    • 1
  • Jürgen Herre
    • 1
  1. 1.International Audio Laboratories ErlangenA Joint Institution of Fraunhofer IIS and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)ErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations