AES E-Library

C. Pike, and H. Stenzel, "Direct and Indirect Listening Test Methods—A Discussion Based on Audio-Visual Spatial Coherence Experiments," Paper 9829, (2017 October.). doi: C. Pike, and H. Stenzel, "Direct and Indirect Listening Test Methods—A Discussion Based on Audio-Visual Spatial Coherence Experiments," Paper 9829, (2017 October.). doi:
Abstract: This paper reviews the pros and cons of using direct measures (e.g. preference, annoyance) and indirect measures (e.g. “subconscious” EEG measures and reaction times, “RTs”) to determine how viewers perceive audio and audio-visual attributes. The methodologies are discussed in relation to spatial coherence testing (whether audio/visual signals arrive from the same direction). Experimental results in coherence testing are described to illustrate problems with direct measures and improvements seen with RTs. Suggestions are made for the use of indirect measures in testing, including more sophisticated uses of RTs. It is concluded that indirect measures offer novel insights into listener evaluations of audio-visual experiences but are not always suitable

@article{pike2017direct,
author={pike, cleopatra and stenzel, hanne},
journal={journal of the audio engineering society},
title={direct and indirect listening test methods—a discussion based on audio-visual spatial coherence experiments},
year={2017},
volume={},
number={},
pages={},
doi={},
month={october},} @article{pike2017direct,
author={pike, cleopatra and stenzel, hanne},
journal={journal of the audio engineering society},
title={direct and indirect listening test methods—a discussion based on audio-visual spatial coherence experiments},
year={2017},
volume={},
number={},
pages={},
doi={},
month={october},
abstract={this paper reviews the pros and cons of using direct measures (e.g. preference, annoyance) and indirect measures (e.g. “subconscious” eeg measures and reaction times, “rts”) to determine how viewers perceive audio and audio-visual attributes. the methodologies are discussed in relation to spatial coherence testing (whether audio/visual signals arrive from the same direction). experimental results in coherence testing are described to illustrate problems with direct measures and improvements seen with rts. suggestions are made for the use of indirect measures in testing, including more sophisticated uses of rts. it is concluded that indirect measures offer novel insights into listener evaluations of audio-visual experiences but are not always suitable},}

TY - paper
TI - Direct and Indirect Listening Test Methods—A Discussion Based on Audio-Visual Spatial Coherence Experiments
SP - EP -
AU - Pike, Cleopatra
AU - Stenzel, Hanne
PY - 2017
JO - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
IS -
VO -
VL -
Y1 - October 2017 TY - paper
TI - Direct and Indirect Listening Test Methods—A Discussion Based on Audio-Visual Spatial Coherence Experiments
SP - EP -
AU - Pike, Cleopatra
AU - Stenzel, Hanne
PY - 2017
JO - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
IS -
VO -
VL -
Y1 - October 2017
AB - This paper reviews the pros and cons of using direct measures (e.g. preference, annoyance) and indirect measures (e.g. “subconscious” EEG measures and reaction times, “RTs”) to determine how viewers perceive audio and audio-visual attributes. The methodologies are discussed in relation to spatial coherence testing (whether audio/visual signals arrive from the same direction). Experimental results in coherence testing are described to illustrate problems with direct measures and improvements seen with RTs. Suggestions are made for the use of indirect measures in testing, including more sophisticated uses of RTs. It is concluded that indirect measures offer novel insights into listener evaluations of audio-visual experiences but are not always suitable