Analysis of Influencing Factors of Auditory Warning Signals’ Perceived Urgency and Reaction Time

  • Lijing WangEmail author
  • Wei Guo
  • Xianchao Ma
  • Baofeng Li
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9736)


The auditory warning is one of the most important information in cockpit. To study the effects of auditory warnings to human capability of receiving information, this paper describes the test about the effects of various warning features on the information receiving performance of the testers. Testers in the laboratory environment finish the mission for determination of 24 warning tones combined by two volumes (65 dB (A), 75 dB (A)), three frequencies (700 Hz, 1,200 Hz, 1,700 Hz), and four inter-onset intervals (100, 150, 300 and 600 ms). This test considers the perceived urgency judgment and reaction time of the tester as the study data that experiences the comparative analysis and variance analysis after being paired. The study results indicate that the sound volume influences the perceived urgency judgment significantly (p < 0.05) and impacts the reaction time greatly (p < 0.01). Sound frequencies also effect the perceived urgency judgment significantly (p < 0.05) and so do the inter-onset intervals in both the perceived urgency judgment and reaction time (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the greater the volume is, the higher the frequency is, the shorter the inter-onset interval is, and the higher the perceived urgency is while the greater the volume is, the shorter the inter-onset interval is, and the shorter the reaction time becomes.


Auditory warning Cockpit Volumes Frequencies Inter-onset interval 


  1. 1.
    Wogalter, M.S., Kalsher, M.J., Rashid, R.: Effect of signal word and source attribution on judgments of warning credibility and compliance likelihood. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 24(2), 185–192 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hellier, E., Edworthy, J.: Quantifying the perceived urgency of auditory warnings. Can. Acoust. 17(4), 3–11 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas, E.C., Casali, J.G.: Perceived urgency of and response time to multi-tone and frequency-modulated warning signals in broadband noise. Ergonomics 38(11), 2313–2326 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, T., Zheng, X., Zhu, Z.: An ergonomic study of visual and auditory alerting modes in aircraft cockpits. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang, Y., Yan, X., Yang, Z.: Discrimination of effects between directional and nondirectional information of auditory warning on driving behavior. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2015, 1–7 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veitengruber, J.E., Boucek, G.P., Smith, W.D.: Aircraft Alerting Systems Criteria Study. Volume 1. Collation and Analysis of Aircraft Alerting Systems Data. Aircraft Alerting Systems Criteria Study (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arrabito, G.R.: Effects of talker sex and voice style of verbal cockpit warnings on performance. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 51(1), 3–20 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NASA: Man system integration standards, NASA-STD-3000 (1995).
  9. 9.
    MIL-STD-1472F: Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities, Department of Defense, July 1999Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suied, C., Susini, P., Mcadams, S.: Evaluating warning sound urgency with reaction times. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 14(3), 201–212 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bodendörfer, X., Kortekaas, R., Weingarten, M., Schlittmeier, S.: The effects of spectral and temporal parameters on perceived confirmation of an auditory non-speech signal. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138(2), 127–132 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, H.-T., Ge, L.-Z., Lu, W.-H.: A study about absolute auditory discrimaination at different frequency level. Chin. J. Ergon. 11(2), 4–6 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellier, E.J., Edworthy, J., Dennis, I.: Improving auditory warning design: quantifying and predicting the effects of different warning parameters on perceived urgency. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 35(4), 693–706 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundamental Science on Ergonomics and Environment Control Laboratory, School of Aeronautic Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China LtdShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations