Investigations into Velocity and Distance Perception Based on Different Types of Moving Sound Sources with Respect to Auditory Virtual Environments

The characteristics of moving sound sources have strong implications on the listener's distance perception and the estimation of velocity. Modifications of the typical sound emissions as they are currently occurring due to the tendency towards electromobility have an impact on the pedestrian's safety in road traffic. Thus, investigations of the relevant cues for velocity and distance perception of moving sound sources are not only of interest for the psychoacoustic community, but also for several applications, like e.g. virtual reality, noise pollution and safety aspects of road traffic. This article describes a series of psychoacoustic experiments in this field. Dichotic and diotic stimuli of a set of real-life recordings taken from a passing passenger car and a motorcycle were presented to test subjects who in turn were asked to determine the velocity of the object and its minimal distance from the listener. The results of these psychoacoustic experiments show that the estimated velocity is strongly linked to the object's distance. Furthermore, it could be shown that binaural cues contribute significantly to the perception of velocity. In a further experiment, it was shown that - independently of the type of the vehicle - the main parameter for distance determination is the maximum sound pressure level at the listener's position. The article suggests a system architecture for the adequate consideration of moving sound sources in virtual auditory environments. Virtual environments can thus be used to investigate the influence of new vehicle powertrain concepts and the related sound emissions of these vehicles on the pedestrians' ability to estimate the distance and velocity of moving objects.

Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It

Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to ³Betamax² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”