confrontation naming of environmental soundspardo/courses/casa/papers/marcel_2000.pdf · boston...

* Thanks are extended to several Cognitive Psychology Laboratory classes and to Independent Study studentsCasey Frampton, Addie Stark, and Barry Adleman for their pilot research efforts in auditory cognition. Thismanuscript is an expanded version of a poster, ‘‘Confrontation Naming of Everyday Sounds,’’ presented by thesame authors at the 10th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC, in May1998.Address correspondence to: Michael M. Marcell, Department of Psychology, College of Charleston, Charleston,SC 29424, USA. E-mail: [email protected] for publication: July 21, 2000.

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1380-3395/00/2206-830$15.002000, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 830-864 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Confrontation Naming of Environmental Sounds

Michael M. Marcell, Diane Borella, Michael Greene, Elizabeth Kerr, and Summer RogersCollege of Charleston, Charleston, SC

ABSTRACT

The development of a set of everyday, nonverbal, digitized sounds for use in auditory confrontation namingapplications is described. Normative data are reported for 120 sounds of varying lengths representing awide variety of acoustic events such as sounds produced by animals, people, musical instruments, tools,signals, and liquids. In Study 1, criteria for scoring naming accuracy were developed and rating data weregathered on degree of confidence in sound identification and the perceived familiarity, complexity, andpleasantness of the sounds. In Study 2, the previously developed criteria for scoring naming accuracy wereapplied to the naming responses of a new sample of subjects, and oral naming times were measured. InStudy 3 data were gathered on how subjects categorized the sounds: In the first categorization task – freeclassification – subjects generated category descriptions for the sounds; in the second task – constrainedclassification – a different sample of subjects selected the most appropriate category label for each soundfrom a list of 27 labels generated in the first task. Tables are provided in which the 120 stimuli are sortedby familiarity, complexity, pleasantness, duration, naming accuracy, speed of identification, and categoryplacement. The .WAV sound files are freely available to researchers and clinicians via a sound archive onthe World Wide Web; the URL is http://www.cofc.edu/~marcellm/confront.htm.

A testing procedure commonly used in psychol-ogy is visual confrontation naming, a task inwhich subjects are asked to identify simple linedrawings or pictures on demand. Cognitive psy-chologists have used visual confrontation nam-ing to explore the organization of informationin, and the retrieval of information from seman-tic memory, developmental psychologists haveused visual confrontation naming to investigateage-based changes in word-finding ability, andclinical neuropsychologists have used visualconfrontation naming to screen for word-findingdifficulty in neurologically impaired popula-tions. A review of studies using the visual con-frontation naming procedure reveals that awealth of ‘‘raw materials’’ exists for conductingsuch investigations. In the realm of cognitive

psychology, the most comprehensive resource isthe Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) set of 260normed drawings; these are widely and flexiblyused in experiments on naming, categorizing,and processing of pictures versus words. Forexample, Mitchell (1989) used 96 pictures fromthe Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) set tostudy developmental changes in naming pro-cesses of young and old adults, and Wingfield,Goodglass, and Smith (1990) used 24 Snodgrassand Vanderwart pictures rated high in nameagreement to investigate, in aphasic subjects,naming facilitation via presentation of time-gated portions of the picture’s spoken name. Anabundance of normative material also exists forstudies of picture naming in the realm of clinicalneuropsychology. Several standardized neuro-

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDS 831

psychology tests, such as the popular 60-itemBoston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, &Weintraub, 1983) and the 30-item Visual Nam-ing Test of the Multilingual Aphasia Examina-tion (Benton & Hamsher, 1989), provide linedrawings normed for use in visual confrontationnaming. Such normed picture-naming materialshave revealed declines in the naming ability ofnormal, healthy adults (e.g., Albert, Heller, &Milberg, 1988) and are an integral part of neuro-psychological language assessments. Responsesmay reveal evidence of word retrieval failure,which is often an early marker of dementia orneurological insult (van Gorp, Satz, Kiersch, &Henry, 1986). Furthermore, picture naming isthe standard technique for investigating anomiaand less severe word-finding problems that arepresent in most types of aphasia (Benson, 1985;Benton & Hamsher, 1989; Goodglass, 1993;Kay & Franklin, 1995; Miceli, Giustolisi, & Ca-ramazza, 1991; Spreen & Strauss, 1991) as wellas in neurological conditions such as Alzhei-mer’s disease (Bayles, Caffrey, Tomoeda, &Trosset, 1990), Huntington’s disease (Wallesch& Fehrenbach, 1988), multiple sclerosis (Beatty,Monson, & Goodkin, 1989), Parkinson’s disease(Frank, McDade, & Scott, 1996), and stroke(Margolin, Pate, Friedrich, & Elia, 1990).

Common to each of these studies is a nearlyuniversal reliance on a single core task, visualconfrontation naming. The practice of using pic-tures to study naming processes has been en-couraged by the excellent quality, careful stan-dardization, and easy availability of several setsof normed pictorial stimuli. It could be argued,however, that overreliance on one task to under-stand a complex, multifaceted process like nam-ing may ultimately limit the external validity ofnaming theories as well as our ability to probethe extent of naming difficulties. For instance, ifpictures, words, and sounds map onto function-ally independent representational systems (cf.Paivio, 1986; Shallice, 1988; Thompson & Pai-vio, 1994), then it is possible that observed de-clines in naming ability in older adults – basedas they are on picture-naming performance –primarily reflect changes in visual-structuralprocesses rather than generalized changes insemantic or phonological access.

Although a few investigators have exploredthe ability to name objects by touch or to nameconcepts from verbal descriptions, little system-atic attention has been given to exploring theother major channel for nonverbally accessingconcepts in semantic memory–the auditory mo-dality. As Ballas (1993) noted, ‘‘Few details areknown about how we identify and perceive ev-eryday sounds. This is surprising, given theubiquitous presence of these sounds and theirimportant functional role....There is hardly anytheory on this topic, and most of the researchhas focused on a limited set of sounds,’’ (p.250). Several have speculated about this lack ofprogress in the study of nonverbal auditory cog-nition, citing such factors as the dominance ofvision in information processing (Posner, Nis-sen, & Klein, 1976), the overwhelming empha-sis in audition on the study of speech communi-cation (McAdams & Bigand, 1993), and thetechnical difficulties of working with sound,which, until the recent advent of powerful per-sonal computers, required expensive equipmentfor editing, splicing, noise filtering, and so on(Luce, 1993).

Studies of nonverbal environmental soundsby cognitive psychologists have focused on top-ics such as the psychoacoustics of specificevents (e.g., the spectral properties of handsclapping or a bottle breaking), the localization ofenvironmental sound sources (e.g., spatial orien-tation to sounds of differing pitches), the detec-tion of unique acoustic events (e.g., vigilancemonitoring of underwater sounds), and the re-membering of sequences of environmentalsounds (e.g., retention of order information infree recall of sounds vs words). We are aware offour studies in the area of cognitive psychologythat have generated normative data on the nam-ing of nonverbal sounds. Ballas (1993) exploredhow several factors – acoustic, ecological, fre-quency, perceptual, and cognitive – influencethe identification of 41 brief sounds by collegestudents, and Fabiani, Kazmerski, Cycowicz,and Friedman (1996) gathered name agreementand conceptual agreement data on 100 briefsounds in separate samples of children (5-6, 9-11, and 14-16 years), young adults (19-34years), and old adults (61-88 years and 54-80

832 MICHAEL M. MARCELL ET AL.

years, the latter with Alzheimer’s disease).These studies yielded cognitive and develop-mental insights about sound identification, gen-erated excellent normative data on sets of shortsounds, and provided useful stimuli for the in-vestigation of issues such as the role of acousticfactors in sound identification and the electro-physiological study of novel sound recognition.However, the brief duration (under 625 or 400ms, respectively) and generally low identifiabil-ity of the stimuli may limit their usefulness insome situations. As Fabiani et al. (1996, p. 473)noted, the use of short stimuli in sound namingtasks is perhaps more equivalent to naming pic-ture fragments than naming whole pictures. Athird study (Chiu & Schacter, 1995) gatheredidentification data from college students on 1and 5 s versions of 24 environmental sounds,and a fourth study (Thompson & Paivio, 1994)gathered name agreement and identification la-tency data on 20 sounds. Limited normative datawere gathered on these small sets of sounds (thestudies focused on broader cognitive issues andnot on the sounds themselves), and the latterstudy provided few details about the normativesample and procedures. Although two otherstudies examined the question of whether indi-viduals can accurately name environmentalsounds (Lass, Eastham, Parrish, Scherbick, andRalph (1982) used multiple versions of 14 dif-ferent sounds, and Van Derveer (1979) (unpub-lished dissertation) used a set of 30 sounds),their usefulness is limited by insufficient de-scriptive information about the individual stim-uli, the naming responses that they elicited, themanner in which they were scored, and/or theircurrent availability.

Research on sound identification by clinicalneuropsychologists has consisted primarily ofcase studies or small-group studies of brain-damaged patients screened for auditory agnosiavia sound recognition tasks in which the patientattempts to point to a picture that matches themeaning of the sound (e.g., Coslett, Brashear, &Heilman, 1984; Nagafuchi, Iinuma, Yamamoto,& Kitahara, 1993; Schnider, Benson, Alexander,& Schnider-Klaus, 1994; Stein & Curry, 1968;Van Lancker (et al.) 1988). A smaller group ofclinical studies has used naming of familiar

sounds to examine auditory perception (e.g.,Eustache, Lechevalier, Viader, & Lambert,1990), anomia (e.g., Goodglass, 1980), and theexpressive language ability of individuals withDown syndrome (Marcell, Busby, Mansker, &Whelan, 1998). However, in both kinds of stud-ies (sound recognition and sound naming), thesmall sets of informal stimuli are of unknownorigin and varying quality, unavailable for wide-spread use, and have no normative data col-lected on them. Consequently, it is difficult tomake comparisons across studies that may haveused very different operationalizations of stimuli(e.g., the ‘‘baby cry’’ sounds of two studiesmight actually be very different-sounding stim-uli that elicit different responses), and it is alsounclear how normal individuals would have re-sponded to the stimuli in terms of ease of nam-ing, familiarity, and so on. We are aware of onlyone clinically oriented study that has generatednormative data on the naming of nonverbalsounds. Spreen and Benton (1963, described bySpreen & Strauss, 1991) developed the SoundRecognition Test, which has primarily been usedby researchers in a four-choice picture-pointingrecognition format (Varney, 1980; Varney &Damasio, 1986), although scoring guidelinesand normative data are provided for use of thetest in an oral naming format. As a tool for ex-amining naming, its strengths include unique-ness (we have been unable to locate any othersuch published collection of average-length,everyday sounds) and its use of very familiarsounds (normal adults typically score perfectly).Weaknesses include the small number of stimuli(there are two equivalent forms, each consistingof only 13 sounds), insufficient informationabout the normative sample, and an absence ofnormative data on both the nameability of theindividual stimuli and sound characteristics (likecomplexity or familiarity) that might influencetheir identifiability.

To summarize, a wealth of materials is avail-able for studying the naming of pictures, butfewer resources are available for studying thenaming of nonverbal sounds. Although the nam-ing of environmental sounds is theoretically rel-evant to the developmental study of changes innaming ability with normal aging, the experi-


1. Unlike Van Derveer (1979) and Ballas and Howard(1987), and largely because of a pragmatic desire toenlarge our stimulus set, we broadened the concept of‘‘environmental sound’’ to include brief snippets ofmusic. Our musical instrument sounds (e.g., accor-dion, piano) do not appear to function in the tradi-tional artistic sense of music; they function, instead,as brief solo instrument segments that are much morelikely to prompt a source identification response (e.g.,‘‘flute’’) than an aesthetic response (e.g., ‘‘beautifulcrescendo!’’).

mental study of semantic memory, and the clini-cal study of word retrieval problems, naturalsounds have seldom been used in these efforts,in large part because until recently there hasbeen no normed set of sound stimuli availablefor use. The primary goal of this project was tocreate a relatively large set of everyday soundsthat can be flexibly adapted for use in clinicaland experimental neuropsychological work onsound identification and naming. Our projectsupplements the work of Ballas (1993) andFabiani et al. (1996), with the primary differ-ence being that the lengths of our sounds varywith the sound source and the event. Our modelfor this effort was the Snodgrass and Van-derwart (1980) picture set which, although origi-nally developed for cognitive psychology appli-cations, has also received widespread develop-mental and clinical use.

OVERVIEW

Selection and Editing of the SoundsWe conducted a literature review of experimen-tal and clinical studies that used nonverbalsounds and from this developed a list of approx-imately 80 sounds previously used in research.To this list we added another 40 sounds derivedfrom other sources (informal time samples ofour own everyday activities, literature from theheyday of radio sound effects, and serendipitous‘‘finds’’ from searching through sound effectslibraries). Digitized stimuli matching the de-scriptions of these sounds were culled from fourCD-ROM royalty-free sound effects libraries,public domain Internet archives, and live record-ings. Guidelines for sound selection includedclarity, realism, and potential identifiabilitywhen presented alone without supporting con-text. Our initial set of sounds represented a widevariety of different acoustic events such assounds produced by animals (e.g., cow, dog),people (e.g., laughing, yawning), musical instru-ments (e.g., piano, trumpet), tools (e.g., ham-mering, sawing), transportation (e.g., car, air-plane), signals (e.g., telephone, doorbell), liq-uids (e.g., water dripping, ocean waves), and soon. Following Van Derveer (1979), we consider

each of these to be an ‘‘environmental sound’’that may be defined as a non-speech sound rep-resenting ‘‘...any potentially audible acousticevent which is caused by motions in the humanenvironment,’’ (p. 16).1 As she noted, the physi-cal sources of these sounds can be animate (e.g.,yawn, cat meow) or inanimate (e.g., water bub-bling, motorcycle), natural (e.g., rain, wind) orartificial (e.g., boat horn, Velcro). Environmen-tal sounds are typically more complex than theusual acoustic stimuli used in laboratories (e.g.,pure tones) and are ‘‘meaningful, in the sensethat they specify events in the environment,’’ (p.17). They are useful in everyday life in a num-ber of ways, such as warning of danger (e.g.,siren), signaling presence (e.g., rattlesnake),denoting correct (e.g., clicking of a stapler) orincorrect (e.g., water dripping) functioning ofdevices, indicating food crispness (e.g., crunchof celery), locating and orienting to an event(e.g, an explosion to the right), monitoringchange in status (e.g., chiming of a cuckooclock), communicating information about emo-tional (e.g., scream) or physical (e.g., a burp)state, and so on. Unlike most static pictures, en-vironmental sounds are dynamic in that theyconvey action and movement-related informa-tion – ‘‘news that something is happening,’’(Jenkins, 1985, p. 117).

Although a few sounds were used with nochanges from the original samples, most wereedited; examples of editing changes includedreducing duration (e.g., cutting a portion fromthe middle of a lengthy babbling brook sound),increasing duration (e.g., pasting an additionalPing-Pong hit-and-return sequence), reducing orincreasing volume, removing extraneous si-lences and noises, and applying fade-in and


fade-out algorithms to the beginnings and endsof the sounds. An important editing decision wasto allow the sounds to vary in length. We take anecological view of auditory perception (e.g.,Jenkins, 1985; McAdams, 1993) and treat acous-tic stimuli as complex, dynamic, and informa-tive events with different inherent temporal pat-terns, ranging from very brief events like thecracking of a whip to lengthier events like thetinkling of wind chimes. Our guideline was toedit each sound to a duration that we believedallowed the ‘‘sound event’’ or ‘‘auditory ob-ject’’ (Wightman & Jenison, 1995) to unfoldnaturally (cf., Port, Cummins, & McAuley,1995); this was clearly more of an artistic thanempirical endeavor. The sounds were saved as16-bit .WAV files at a sampling rate of 22,050Hz.

Common MethodsAll participants were undergraduates at the Col-lege of Charleston, a liberal arts college in SouthCarolina that recruits students primarily fromthe southeast region of the US. At the time ofthis study, the College’s undergraduate popula-tion was largely female (62% female, 38%male), white (88% Caucasian, 8% African-American, 4% other), and young (51% 18–20years, 32% 21–24 years, and 17% > 25 years).

In each of the three studies subjects listenedto random orderings of experimental sounds andperformed tasks involving either identification,attribute rating, and/or categorization. Thesounds were presented free-field via MEL2 soft-ware programs (Schneider, 1995) over Pentiumcomputers equipped with stereo speakers. Test-ing was conducted individually when vocal reac-tion times were measured and in small groupswhen written responses were gathered. Partici-pants were initially presented a randomly se-lected subset of 15-20 experimental sounds inorder to provide an idea of the range of differentstimuli to be encountered (Snodgrass &Vanderwart, 1980). Practice trials were thenpresented to ensure familiarity with the task.The typical testing session lasted 45 minutes,with rest breaks taken after 1/3 and 2/3 of thestimuli had been presented. Sounds were pre-sented at a comfortable, preset loudness estab-

lished through pilot testing. Each study em-ployed written informed consent and debriefingprocedures and conformed with ethical guide-lines of the American Psychological Associa-tion.

STUDY 1: IDENTIFICATION OFSOUNDS AND RATING OF SOUNDCHARACTERISTICS

The purpose of this study was to collect norma-tive data on a large set of everyday sounds, andthe primary goal was to gather a corpus of nam-ing responses for use in developing scoring cri-teria. We recorded the descriptions spontane-ously used by subjects to identify the sounds andthen used those responses to develop guidelinesfor scoring naming accuracy. We followed VanDerveer’s (1979) nondirective instructionalguidelines and did not tell participants, for in-stance, whether they should describe the sound’sperceptual qualities (e.g., ‘‘rapid, lengthy, abra-sive sound’’), the agent or source of the sound(e.g., ‘‘a person’’), the action or event depicted(e.g., ‘‘brushing’’), or the recipient of the action(‘‘teeth’’). Like Van Derveer, we were simplyinterested in determining how subjects woulddescribe a sound, and then in using their de-scriptions to determine the level of generalitythat would be considered a typical or ‘‘accu-rate’’ description of the sound.

The secondary goal of this study was to deter-mine how subjects rate the sounds on three char-acteristics that have been shown to influence theidentifiability of stimuli: (a) Familiarity refersto how usual or common a stimulus is in thesubject’s realm of experience; it has been de-scribed in visual confrontation naming studies asthe pictorial equivalent of word frequency(Basso, Capitani, & Laiacona, 1988). The roleof familiarity as a property that influences bothpicture naming (e.g., Snodgrass & Vanderwart,1980) and sound identification (Ballas, 1993) iswell established; it is also frequently used as acharacteristic for selecting subsets of stimuli(e.g., Gainotti & Silveri (1996) created matchedpicture sets of living and non-living objects ofhigh or low familiarity); (b) Complexity refers to


2. Four sounds were removed from the original set of118 sounds, 6 new sounds were added, 16 soundswere replaced with new exemplars (e.g., the originalhelicopter sound was dropped and replaced with anew helicopter sound), and 18 sounds were reedited toachieve better clarity. The final outcome was the setof 120 sounds used in all subsequent studies.

3. The instructions used in Studies 1 and 2 for thesound identification portion of the experiment in-cluded the following:

‘‘Your task is to identify each sound as quickly andas accurately as you can. Use one or two words todescribe what you hear, and write your response inthe blank provided (or ‘speak into the microphoneas soon as you are ready to respond’). You maywrite your answer (or ‘speak into the microphone’)as soon as you are ready to respond, even if thesound is still playing. The sound will be playedonly once, so listen closely. If you do not knowwhat the sound is, try to guess.’’

the amount of perceptual richness, detail, or in-tricacy of a stimulus (after Basso et al., 1988); itis a feature of nonverbal stimuli that influencesperformance on identification variables such asnaming latency and recognition threshold(Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980). The impor-tance of having normative data on complexitycan be seen, for instance, in Basso et al.’s (1988)study of the relationship between visual com-plexity and accuracy in naming pictures fromdifferent semantic categories; (c) Pleasantnessrefers to how pleasing or agreeable a stimulusappears to an individual; it has been shown to bean important emotional attribute of everydayand musical sounds (e.g., Ballas, 1993; Bjork,1985). Unlike the properties of familiarity andcomplexity, there is little research available onpleasantness as a dimension of picture naming;we selected it, instead, on the basis of its impor-tance in auditory research topics such as the psy-chological effects of environmental noise (Vos,1992). Having normative data on the ratedpleasantness of a set of sounds might be usefulin cognitive psychology applications such asmood induction (e.g., using potentially unpleas-ant sounds like ‘‘scream,’’ ‘‘jackhammer,’’‘‘mosquito,’’ and ‘‘police siren’’ to create asubtle negative mood state in the listener, andsounds like ‘‘ocean,’’ ‘‘birds chirping,’’‘‘harp,’’ and ‘‘wind chimes’’ to create a positivemood state).

METHOD

ParticipantsIn the initial study, 25 introductory psychologycollege students (15 females and 10 males, M age= 19.3 years, SD = 1.4 years) were presented 118stimuli for judgment. In a follow-up study usingidentical procedures, a new sample of 25 introduc-tory psychology college students (20 females and5 males, M age = 20.7 years, SD = 2.4 years) werepresented 42 sounds for judgment. The purpose ofthe follow-up study was to gather new data on sub-jects’ judgments of 42 sounds that had either beenaltered (reedited, replaced) or added to the originalset.2 All data subsequently presented in Study 1 arefor the final set of 120 sounds, each of which wasidentified and rated by a sample of 25 subjects.Subjects received extra credit for their participa-

tion and none responded affirmatively to the self-report question, ‘‘To the best of your knowledge,do you have a hearing loss?’’

ProcedureParticipants were tested in small groups of 2-6 in-dividuals. Answers were recorded in writing onslips of paper containing a blank for the trial num-ber (trial #1, #2, etc.), a blank for the name of thesound, and four rating scales. Each of the ran-domly ordered sounds was presented once, andparticipants were allowed 30 s to complete theiridentification and rating tasks (although most fin-ished more rapidly). The participant’s primary taskwas to name the stimulus by writing a response onan 8 cm blank line. Participants were given open-ended instructions (e.g., ‘‘use one or two words todescribe what you hear’’) and were not asked todescribe, for example, the source of the sound(e.g., ‘‘horse’’), the type of sound (e.g., ‘‘gallop-ing’’), or the sound qualities (‘‘rhythmic, clip-clopsound on hard surface’’).3 After each identificationparticipants responded to the written question,‘‘How confident are you in your decision?,’’ bycircling one of the seven choices on a Likert scaleranging from 1 (‘‘Not at all Confident’’) to 7(‘‘Very Confident’’). Finally, participants made 7-point Likert scale ratings of the sound’s perceivedfamiliarity (1 = ‘‘Highly Unfamiliar’’ and 7 =‘‘Highly Familiar’’), complexity (1 = ‘‘Very Sim-ple’’ and 7 = ‘‘Very Complex’’), and pleasantness(1 = ‘‘Very Unpleasant’’ and 7 = ‘‘Very Pleas-ant’’).


RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Guidelines for Scoring Naming ResponsesThe initial tabulations of subjects’ naming re-sponses revealed that although a few of thesounds were accurately and consistently de-scribed with a single word (e.g., ‘‘doorbell’’),more of the sounds were accurately describedwith several different yet completely appropriatewords (e.g., ‘‘fiddle’’ for ‘‘violin’’) or phrases(e.g., ‘‘balling up paper’’ for ‘‘crumpling pa-per’’). Thus, it became critical to develop de-tailed guidelines for evaluating multiple re-sponses to these stimuli, and we did so initiallyby using the corpus of naming responses toguide us in establishing scoring criteria. For ex-ample, tabulation of responses to the baby cry-ing stimulus suggested that a correct descriptionshould include both the words ‘‘baby’’ and‘‘crying’’ because all 25 subjects spontaneouslydid so. Likewise, only one subject’s response tothe sound of a man burping included a referenceto the agent that produced the sound; thus, a cor-rect identification in this case needed to referonly to the action itself (the root word ‘‘burp’’).

In addition to developing scoring guidelinesbased on the most frequent responses of partici-pants, we also considered, as did Van Derveer(1979), whether the non-modal responses of par-ticipants provided adequate descriptions of thesound events. For instance, we found that al-though ‘‘truck’’ was the most frequent responsegiven to the sound thus labeled, some partici-pants gave a completely acceptable descriptionof this sound at the same conceptual level usingthe word ‘‘bus.’’ Furthermore, we found thateven though some non-modal responses did notfall into the dominant conceptual category, theywere nevertheless precise alternative descrip-tions of the acoustic stimulus. For instance, wefound that even though ‘‘crickets’’ was the mostfrequent response given to the sound thus la-beled, the sound could also be accurately de-scribed as that of young birds chirping. In sum-mary, the non-modal description of a sound wasjudged as correct when the response was one ofthe following:

(1) A synonym for the sound label (e.g., ‘‘tea-pot’’ for ‘‘tea kettle;’’ ‘‘mule’’ or ‘‘ass’’ for

‘‘donkey’’). (Unabridged dictionaries and the-sauri were used to determine, for instance, that‘‘pipes’’ was an unfamiliar yet acceptable syn-onym for ‘‘bagpipes,’’ and ‘‘chimes’’ an accept-able descriptor for ‘‘church bells.’’)

(2) A description that accurately captured themeaning of the sound source or the conceptualnature of the sound (e.g., ‘‘bomb’’ or ‘‘cannon’’for ‘‘explosion;’’ ‘‘bouncing ball’’ for ‘‘basket-ball’’).

(3) An obvious misspelling (e.g., ‘‘cash regis-trar’’ for ‘‘cash register;’’ ‘‘symbol’’ for ‘‘cym-bal’’).

(4) A variation in word order (e.g., ‘‘cryingbaby’’ for ‘‘baby crying;’’ ‘‘breaking of glass’’for ‘‘glass breaking’’).

(5) A word or phrase with a different gram-matical ending but the correct root word (e.g., aplural version of a singular sound source such as‘‘ducks’’ for ‘‘duck;’’ a variation in tense suchas ‘‘a car crashed’’ for ‘‘cars crashing;’’ otherroot-preserving grammatical modifications suchas ‘‘bag piper’’ for ‘‘bagpipes’’).

(6) A correct identification with extraneousinformation (e.g., ‘‘moving train whistle’’ for‘‘train;’’ ‘‘person whistling to dog’’ for ‘‘whis-tle’’).

(7) An acceptable label given as the second oftwo different responses (e.g., ‘‘either drums orbongos’’ for ‘‘bongos’’) [We found in subse-quent research with oral responses that the sec-ond response was typically the desired response,given usually as a self-correction (e.g.,‘‘Sigh–no, yawn’’) or a sharpening (e.g., ‘‘waterrunning–it’s a river’’) of the first response.]

(8) An unanticipated description that wassubsequently judged as an acoustically precisealternative interpretation by the unanimousjudgments of three independent listeners (e.g.,‘‘fish tank air pump’’ for ‘‘water bubbling;’’‘‘metronome’’ for ‘‘clock ticking’’).

A sound description was judged as incorrectwhen the response was one of the following:

(1) An inaccurate description of the sound(e.g., ‘‘xylophone’’ for ‘‘harp;’’ ‘‘vacuumcleaner’’ for ‘‘truck’’), no response, or a ‘‘don’tknow’’ type of response.

(2) A generalized, broad-category (super-ordinate) description that was infrequently used


and ambiguous inasmuch as it could apply toseveral widely varying sounds (e.g., ‘‘game’’for ‘‘pinball;’’ ‘‘string instrument’’ for ‘‘vio-lin’’).

Specific scoring guidelines for determiningthe accuracy of naming responses to each of the120 sounds are described in Table 1. The‘‘Sound Label’’ column lists, in alphabeticalorder, the modal label–the most commondescriptor–used to identify a stimulus. For ex-ample, the label for the sound of an elephanttrumpeting is listed simply as ‘‘elephant,’’ andthe label for the sound of a door slamming shutis listed as ‘‘door closing,’’ because these werethe most frequent responses. Stimuli that wereinaccurately identified by most subjects arelisted either by the most frequently used correctsound label (e.g., ‘‘Velcro’’) or by the soundlabel associated with the original sound record-ing (e.g., ‘‘can crush’’). As in standardized pic-ture-naming tests, each response is scored ascorrect or incorrect and, where needed, exam-ples are provided in the table of correct and in-correct responses.

Applying the specific scoring guidelines ofTable 1 to subjects’ naming responses revealedthat a sound, on the average, was accuratelynamed by 80.97% of the subjects (SD = 23.94%)with a high level of confidence (M = 5.95, SD =1.09). As expected, subjects expressed higherdegrees of confidence when accurately namingsounds, r(118) = .84, p < .001. We found, as didVan Derveer (1979), that subjects rarely men-tioned the agent of a human-produced sound.That is, although many of the sounds wereclearly produced by the actions of people (e.g.,whistling, can opening, burp, violin, gunshots,laughing, etc.), the majority of subjects men-tioned the actor in their descriptions of only twoof the sounds – baby crying and child coughing,sounds in which the age information was highlysalient; a third sound – ’’scream’’ – was de-scribed by 36% of the participants with refer-ence to the actor (most specified a female). Sub-jects’ responses typically focused on either theaction/event (e.g., bowling, hammering, shuf-fling cards) or the inanimate object ( e.g.,swords, whip, harmonica) producing the sound.In contrast, all of the animal sounds (e.g., cat,

dog barking, chickens, crickets, horse galloping)included reference to the agent of the sound.Participants also tended to generate shorter re-sponses to accurately named sounds (e.g.,‘‘sneeze;’’ ‘‘door closing’’) and longer re-sponses to inaccurately named sounds (e.g.,‘‘taking top off something’’ for ‘‘cork pop-ping;’’ ‘‘metal ball rolling’’ for ‘‘pinball’’), de-spite the instructions to use only one or twowords (cf. Van Derveer, 1979). Finally, wefound, as have others (e.g., Ballas & Howard,1987; Van Derveer, 1979), that participantsrarely described the acoustic properties of astimulus. As Howard and Ballas (1987) put it,‘‘Simply stated, the recognition of environmen-tal sounds is directed to produce semantic inter-pretations of the sound,’’ (p. 103).

Sound Attribute Ratings and Sound DurationThe sounds are listed in alphabetical order bysound label in the first column of Table 2; meanattribute ratings are listed in the second (famil-iarity), third (perceptual complexity), and fourth(pleasantness) columns, and stimulus durationsare listed in the fifth column. Tables 3-5 list the120 sounds in order of their rated familiarity,complexity, and pleasantness, respectively, withthe highest-rated sounds (i.e., the most familiar,complex, or pleasant sounds) listed at the top ofthe table.

The distributions of familiarity and complex-ity ratings strongly paralleled those reported bySnodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) in their nor-mative study of pictures. Familiarity ratingswere skewed in the direction of sounds beingquite familiar (M = 5.92 on a 7-point scale, SD =0.98), with the five most familiar sounds beingtelephone, toilet flushing, birds chirping, brush-ing teeth, and sneeze (ratings ranged from 7.00to 6.88) and the five least familiar being cancrush, whip, pinball, tearing paper, and sonar(3.44-2.21). Correlational analyses revealed thatmore familiar sounds tended to be more accu-rately named, r(118) = .81, p < .001. The veryhigh correlation between familiarity and confi-dence ratings [r(118) = .96, p < .001] suggeststhat these two scales were redundant and likelymeasured the same characteristic. Complexityratings were compactly and symmetrically dis-


Table 1. Specific Scoring Guidelines for 120 Sounds Listed Alphabetically by Sound Label.

Sound label A correct response must include...

Accordion The root ‘‘accordion’’ or ‘‘concertina’’Airplane The root ‘‘plane’’ or ‘‘jet; ’’ reference to a specific type of jet (e.g., ‘‘747’’)

also acceptableBaby crying Both the roots ‘‘baby’’ and ‘‘cry; ‘‘ synonym(s) may also be used (e.g., ‘‘in-

fant bawling’’)Bagpipes The root ‘‘bagpipe’’ or ‘‘pipes’’Banjo The root ‘‘banjo’’Basketball Either the root ‘‘basketball’’ or the word ‘‘ball’’ paired with the action of

dribbling or bouncingBicycle bell Both the roots ‘‘bell’’ and ‘‘bicycle’’ or ‘‘bike’’Birds chirping The root ‘‘bird;’’ reference to the chirping sound alone not acceptableBlinds The root ‘‘blinds’’ (e.g., ‘‘Venetian blinds,’’ ‘‘miniblinds,’’ ‘‘opening the

blinds’’)Blowing nose Both the roots ‘‘blow’’ and ‘‘nose’’Boat horn The roots ‘‘boat’’ and ‘‘horn’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘foghorn;’’ ‘‘horn on a

ship’’); reference to a specific type of large ship (e.g., ‘‘tugboat;’’ ‘‘cruiseship’’) also acceptable

Bongos1 The root ‘‘bongo’’ or ‘‘conga;’’ reference to the root ‘‘drum’’ not acceptableBowling The root ‘‘bowling’’Brushing teeth Both the roots ‘‘brush’’ (verb) and ‘‘teeth;’’ ‘‘toothbrush’’ not acceptableBurp The root ‘‘burp’’ or ‘‘belch’’Camera Either the root ‘‘camera’’ or reference to the action of taking picturesCan crush Both the object (any type of can) and the crushing action (e.g., ‘‘smashing

can’’)Can opening Both the object (e.g., ‘‘Coke,’’ ‘‘can,’’ ‘‘drink’’) and the action of opening it

(e.g., ‘‘opening a can,’’ ‘‘drink opened’’); reference to the specific type ofcan (e.g., ‘‘soda pop top’’) also acceptable

Car crash Both the object (‘‘car’’ or a synonym like ‘‘automobile’’) and the event (e.g.,‘‘car crashing’’, ‘‘automobile accident’’)

Car horn The root ‘‘horn;’’ reference to only the source of the sound (e.g., ‘‘car’’) notacceptable

Cash register Both the roots ‘‘cash’’ and ‘‘register’’Cat The root ‘‘cat’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘kitten’’); reference to the meowing

sound alone not acceptableChewing Either the specific action (‘‘chewing,’’ ‘‘munching,’’ ‘‘crunching’’) or refer-

ence to any crisp food such as ‘‘carrot,’’ ‘‘celery,’’ or ‘‘chips;’’ reference toonly the general action of eating not acceptable

Chickens The root ‘‘chicken’’ or ‘‘hen;’’ ‘‘rooster’’ not acceptableChild coughing The root ‘‘cough;’’ reference to the actor alone (e.g., ‘‘child’’) not acceptableChurch bells The root ‘‘bell’’ or ‘‘chime’’Clapping The root ‘‘clap’’ or ‘‘applaud’’Clearing throat Both the roots ‘‘clear’’ and ‘‘throat’’Coin dropping The root ‘‘coin,’’ a synonym like ‘‘change,’’ or a particular type of coin; ref-

erence to ‘‘money’’ or only the action of dropping not acceptableCork popping Either the root ‘‘cork’’ or a description of a specific object or action involv-

ing a cork (e.g., ‘‘champagne,’’ ‘‘popgun,’’ ‘‘opening a wine bottle’’); otheractions or objects not involving a cork (e.g., ‘‘balloon bursting,’’ ‘‘bubblegum pop’’), a vague response (e.g., ‘‘top opening’’), or a general descriptionof the popping sound itself (e.g., ‘‘pop’’) not acceptable

Cow The root ‘‘cow;’’ reference to the mooing sound alone not acceptable

Table continues.


Table continued.


Crickets The root ‘‘cricket’’ or ‘‘grasshopper;’’ reference to a ‘‘bird chirping’’ soundalso acceptable (although reference to birds alone is not)

Crow1 The root ‘‘crow’’ or ‘‘bird;’’ reference to other birds (e.g., ‘‘eagle’’) or to thesound alone (e.g., ‘‘caw,’’ ‘‘squawking’’) not acceptable

Crumpling paper Both the crumpling action and the paper or plastic recipient of the action(e.g., ‘‘balling up paper,’’ ‘‘wrapper crinkling’’); imprecise verbs (e.g., ‘‘rus-tling,’’ ‘‘rattling’’) or reference to the object alone (e.g., ‘‘candy wrapper’’)not acceptable

Cuckoo clock The root ‘‘clock;’’ ‘‘cuckoo’’ alone not acceptableCutting paper Either the object (‘‘scissors’’) or the cutting action plus recipient (e.g., ‘‘cut-

ting paper’’); reference to the cutting action alone or to a non-cutting action(e.g., ‘‘tearing paper’’ or ‘‘ripping’’) not acceptable

Cymbals The root ‘‘cymbal’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘high hat’’); reference to the crash-ing sound alone not acceptable

Dog barking The root ‘‘dog;’’ reference to the barking sound alone not acceptableDonkey The root ‘‘donkey,’’ ‘‘mule,’’ ‘‘ass,’’ or ‘‘burro;’’ reference to the sound

alone (e.g., ‘‘hee-haw,’’ ‘‘braying’’) not acceptableDoorbell The root ‘‘doorbell’’Door closing Both the object (‘‘door’’) and the closing action (e.g., ‘‘door slamming,’’

‘‘shutting door’’)Drill The root ‘‘drill;’’ ‘‘electric saw’’ or ‘‘power saw’’ (but not ‘‘saw’’ or

‘‘chainsaw’’) also acceptable; a generic response (e.g., ‘‘power tool’’) or ref-erence to a household appliance (e.g., ‘‘hair dryer,’’ ‘‘blender’’) not accept-able

Dropping ice in glass The root ‘‘ice;’’ reference to the dropping action or to the glass receptaclewithout mention of ice not acceptable; reference to ‘‘marbles’’ combinedwith either the dropping action or the receptacle is acceptable

Drums The root ‘‘drum’’Duck The root ‘‘duck’’ or ‘‘goose;’’ reference to the quacking sound alone not ac-

ceptableElephant The root ‘‘elephant’’Explosion The root ‘‘explode;’’ reference to a large, man-made explosive sound (e.g.,

‘‘bomb blast’’) or the source of the sound (e.g., ‘‘cannon’’) also acceptable;reference to only a small sound source (e.g., ‘‘gunshot’’) or a natural explo-sive sound (e.g., ‘‘thunder’’) not acceptable

Firecrackers The root ‘‘firecracker’’ or ‘‘firework;’’ reference to guns or the sound ofshooting not acceptable

Flute The root ‘‘flute’’ or ‘‘recorder’’Frog The root ‘‘frog’’ or ‘‘toad’’Frying food The root ‘‘fry;’’ a general description of the event (e.g., ‘‘something cook-

ing’’) or reference to the object alone (e.g., ‘‘bacon’’) not acceptableGargling The root ‘‘gargle’’ or ‘‘gurgle’’Glass breaking Both the object (anything made of glass) and the action of breaking (e.g.,

‘‘broken glass,’’ ‘‘breaking a window’’); reference to an imprecise object(e.g., ‘‘something breaking’’) not acceptable

Gong The root ‘‘gong;’’ reference to only the sound itself (e.g., ‘‘bong’’) not ac-ceptable

Guitar The root ‘‘guitar’’

Table continues.


Table continued.


Gunshots Either the root ‘‘gun’’ or ‘‘shot;’’ use of a synonym (e.g., ‘‘rifle,’’ ‘‘pistol’’)or reference to a specific type of hand-held, single-fire gun (e.g., ‘‘22 cali-ber’’) also acceptable

Hammering The root ‘‘hammer;’’ responses such as ‘‘hitting nails’’ or ‘‘door knock’’ notacceptable

Harmonica The root ‘‘harmonica’’ or ‘‘mouth organ’’Harp The root ‘‘harp;’’ ‘‘harpsichord’’, however, is not acceptableHelicopter The root ‘‘helicopter’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘whirlybird,’’ ‘‘chopper’’)Horse galloping The root ‘‘horse;’’ reference to the galloping sound alone not acceptableJackhammer The root ‘‘jackhammer’’Knocking The root ‘‘knock;’’ reference to the recipient of the action alone (‘‘door’’) not

acceptableLaughing The root ‘‘laugh’’ or a synonym for hearty laughter (e.g., ‘‘cackling,’’ ‘‘guf-

faw’’)Lawn mower Both the roots ‘‘lawn’’ and ‘‘mower;’’’’ reference to other lawn tools (e.g.,

‘‘weedeater’’) or the general activity of ‘‘cutting grass’’ not acceptableLion The root ‘‘lion’’ or ‘‘tiger;’’ a general descriptor (e.g., ‘‘big cat’’) or refer-

ence to the roaring sound alone not acceptableMachine gun The root ‘‘machine gun,’’ ‘‘tommy gun,’’ or ‘‘semiautomatic;’’ reference to

the concepts of ‘‘gunfire’’ or ‘‘rapid fire’’ alone not acceptableMonkey The root ‘‘monkey,’’ ‘‘chimp,’’ or reference to another non-human primate;

reference to the sound alone (e.g., ‘‘screech’’) not acceptableMosquito1 The root ‘‘bee,’’ ‘‘fly,’’ or ‘‘mosquito,’’ or reference to any buzzing, flying

insect; reference to the buzzing sound alone, or to the generic ‘‘bug’’ or ‘‘in-sect,’’ is not acceptable

Motorcycle The root ‘‘motorcycle’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘chopper’’)Ocean The root ‘‘ocean,’’ ‘‘wave,’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘sea’’); ‘‘beach,’’ without

reference to water, is not acceptableOrgan The root ‘‘organ’’Owl The root ‘‘owl’’Piano The root ‘‘piano’’ or ‘‘keyboard’’Pig The root ‘‘pig’’ or ‘‘hog’’Pinball The root ‘‘pinball;’’ reference to ‘‘game’’ or ‘‘machine’’ alone not accept-

ablePing-Pong The root ‘‘Ping-Pong’’ or ‘‘table tennis’’ (but not ‘‘tennis’’ alone)Police siren Either the root ‘‘siren’’ or reference to an emergency vehicle that uses a siren

(e.g., ‘‘police car,’’ ‘‘ambulance’’); reference to ‘‘police’’ alone not accept-able

Pouring water At least two of the following concepts: the action (‘‘pouring’’ or ‘‘filling’’),the liquid being poured (any liquid), and the receptacle (any container) (e.g.,‘‘filling cup,’’ ‘‘pouring liquid’’)

Pullchain lightswitch Either the root ‘‘pullchain,’’ ‘‘light,’’ or ‘‘switch;’’ reference to ‘‘stapler’’ or‘‘pen clicking’’ also acceptable

Rain The root ‘‘rain;’’ ‘‘shower’’ not acceptable due to potential confusion withbath shower

Rattlesnake Either the root ‘‘snake’’ or ‘‘rattler;’’ ‘‘rattle’’ alone not acceptableRiver The root ‘‘river,’’ ‘‘stream,’’ ‘‘brook,’’ ‘‘creek,’’ or reference to any natural,

flowing body of water; reference to ‘‘waterfall,’’ or an imprecise responselike ‘‘running water’’ not acceptable

Table continues.


Table continued.


Rooster The root ‘‘rooster’’ or ‘‘cock;’’ reference to the sound alone (e.g., ‘‘cock-a-doodle-doo’’) not acceptable

Sandpaper The root ‘‘sandpaper’’ or ‘‘sanding’’Sawing The root ‘‘saw’’Saxophone The root ‘‘sax’’Scream The root ‘‘scream’’Seal The root ‘‘seal’’ or ‘‘sea lion;’’ reference to the barking sound alone not ac-

ceptableSheep The root ‘‘sheep,’’ ‘‘lamb,’’ or ‘‘goat;’’ reference to the baaing sound alone

not acceptableShuffling cards Either the root ‘‘shuffle’’ or the root ‘‘card’’Sneeze The root ‘‘sneeze’’Snoring The root ‘‘snore;’’ reference to just the act of sleeping not acceptableSonar The root ‘‘sonar,’’ ‘‘submarine,’’ or ‘‘radar’’Stapler The root ‘‘staple’’Swords Either the root ‘‘sword,’’ a synonym (e.g., ‘‘saber’’), reference to a large,

sharp cutting tool like a machete, or the action of sharpening a knife; refer-ence to the sound alone (e.g., ‘‘clanging metal’’) or to ‘‘knife’’ or ‘‘knives’’either alone or combined with a word other than ‘‘sharpening’’ (e.g., ‘‘knivesscraping’’) not acceptable

Tea kettle The root ‘‘kettle’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘teapot’’); ‘‘boiling water,’’ a descrip-tion of the whistling sound alone, or an imprecise reference to the object(e.g., ‘‘steam from a pot’’) not acceptable

Tearing paper Both the object (any paper or cloth object) and the action of tearing it (e.g.,‘‘cloth ripping,’’ ‘‘paper tear’’); an imprecise reference to an object (e.g.,‘‘something tearing’’) not acceptable

Telephone The root ‘‘phone;’’ reference to the ringing sound alone not acceptableThunder The root ‘‘thunder,’’ ‘‘storm,’’ or ‘‘lightning’’Toilet flushing The root ‘‘toilet’’ or a synonym (e.g., ‘‘commode’’); reference to the flushing

sound alone not acceptableTrain The root ‘‘train’’ or a synonym like ‘‘locomotive’’Truck The root ‘‘truck’’ or ‘‘bus;’’ reference to a particular type of large truck (e.g.,

‘‘18-wheeler’’) acceptable, but ‘‘bulldozer’’ or other construction machinerynot; imprecise responses like ‘‘car’’ or ‘‘vacuum cleaner’’ not acceptable

Trumpet The root ‘‘trumpet’’ or any trumpet-like brass wind instrument (e.g., ‘‘bu-gle’’); use of the generic label ‘‘horn’’ also acceptable

Turning pages Both a turning action and a paper object (e.g., ‘‘changing pages,’’ ‘‘flippingpapers’’); imprecise reference to the action (e.g., ‘‘rustling papers’’) not ac-ceptable

Typewriter (manual) The root ‘‘typewriter;’’ reference to ‘‘cash register’’ not acceptableVelcro The root ‘‘velcro’’ or reference to the concept of tearing cloth (e.g., ‘‘fabric

ripping’’)Violin The root ‘‘violin,’’ a synonym (e.g., ‘‘fiddle’’), or the root ‘‘viola;’’ ‘‘string

instrument’’ or ‘‘cello’’ not acceptableWater bubbling The root ‘‘bubble’’ or ‘‘boil;’’ reference to a circumstance in which air is

blown into a liquid (e.g., ‘‘fish tank,’’ ‘‘blow through straw’’) also accept-able; reference to the liquid alone not acceptable

Table continues.


Table continued.


Water draining Either the object (any liquid) or vehicle (‘‘sink,’’ ‘‘tub’’) and the act of drain-ing (e.g., ‘‘water going down a drain,’’ ‘‘draining a liquid,’’ ‘‘tub empty-ing’’); reference to other specific actions with water (e.g., ‘‘flushing,’’‘‘pouring water,’’ ‘‘running water’’) not acceptable

Water dripping The root ‘‘drip’’ or ‘‘drop;’’ reference to the liquid alone (e.g., ‘‘water’’) orto rain not acceptable

Whip The root ‘‘whip;’’ reference to a gunshot sound or description of the crackingsound alone not acceptable

Whistle (instrument) The root ‘‘whistle’’Whistling (lips) The root ‘‘whistle;’’ reference to an event without the root word (e.g., ‘‘call-

ing a dog’’) not acceptableWind The root ‘‘wind’’ or any synonym for a strong wind (e.g., ‘‘gale’’)Wind chimes Both the roots ‘‘wind’’ and ‘‘chime;’’ ‘‘bells,’’ ‘‘windbells,’’or ‘‘chimes’’

alone not acceptableWolf The root word ‘‘wolf’’ (e.g., ‘‘werewolf’’) or ‘‘coyote;’’ reference to ‘‘wild

dogs’’ or the howling sound itself not acceptableWoodpecker The root ‘‘woodpecker’’Yawning The root ‘‘yawn’’Zipper The root ‘‘zip’’

Note. The scoring guidelines listed above were initially developed in Study 1; a few minor revisions were addedin Study 2.1 This sound was actually given a different modal label by participants. The non-modal sound label listed in thetable was used for the following reason: (1) The bongos sound was labeled with the root ‘‘bongo’’ or ‘‘conga’’(similar-sounding instruments played with the hands) by 38% of the participants and with the root ‘‘drum’’ by48%; however, three independent judges deemed the broader ‘‘drum’’ response unacceptable in light of therelative uniqueness of the bongo sound, its clear difference from the other ‘‘prototypical’’ drum sound in the set,and the attempts of some subjects to specify a type of drum (e.g., ‘‘tympani’’). (2) The sound of a crow waslabeled ‘‘bird’’ by 42% of the participants and ‘‘crow’’ by 34%; both responses were scored as correct, and the‘‘crow’’ label was kept so as to distinguish it from the other sound involving birds. (3) The sound of a mosquitowas labeled ‘‘mosquito’’ by 10% of the participants and ‘‘bee’’ by 34%; both responses were considered correctacoustic interpretations at the same conceptual level, and the ‘‘mosquito’’ label was kept in order to provide themost accurate description of the insect represented in the original sound recording. The bongos and crow soundswere the only examples of sounds not named at a well-agreed upon level of specificity. Generally, we found veryclose agreement on the appropriate conceptual level at which the sounds were named.

tributed around a mean of 3.26 (SD = .56), withthe five sounds rated as most complex being pin-ball, accordion, sonar, velcro, and can crush(4.92-4.32) and the five rated as simplest beingknocking, yawning, doorbell, door closing, andburp (2.24-1.92). Sounds that were perceptuallysimpler tended to be rated as more familiar,r(118) = –.64, p < .001; this finding parallelsSnodgrass and Vanderwart’s (1980) finding thatvisually complex pictures tend to be rated asunfamiliar. Simpler sounds also tended to benamed more accurately, r(118) = –.61, p < .001;interestingly, this finding parallels that of

Montanes, Goldblum, and Boller (1995), whoshowed that both healthy older adults and Alz-heimer’s disease patients show poorer naming ofpictures that are high in visual complexity.

Pleasantness ratings were widely distributedaround a mean of 3.87 (SD = 1.13), with the fivemost pleasant sounds being ocean, violin, river,saxophone, flute, and piano (the latter two weretied) (6.36-6.08) and the five least pleasantsounds being mosquito, gunshots, jackhammer,scream, and car crash (1.84-1.52). Naming accu-racy was not influenced by rated pleasantness ofthe sounds, r(118) = .14. Furthermore, pleasant-


Table 2. Studies 1 (N = 25) and 2 (N = 25): Mean Familiarity Rating (Famil), Complexity Rating (Complx), Pleasantness Rating (Pleas),Stimulus Duration (Dura), Naming Accuracy (NAcc), Confidence in NAcc Rating (Conf), and Vocal Response Time (RT) for 120Environmental Sounds Listed Alphabetically by Sound Label.

Sound label Famil Complx Pleas Dura (ms) NAcc (%) Conf RT(ms)

Accordion 5.72 (1.31) 4.52 (1.66) 5.56 (1.23) 3,970 54 5.30 (1.83) 5,363 (2,222)Airplane 6.80 (.50) 3.12 (2.13) 3.16 (1.49) 3,808 94 6.28 (1.41) 4,084 (1,191)Baby crying 6.80 (.65) 3.12 (2.01) 2.36 (1.35) 1,799 100 6.88 (.31) 2,062 (887)Bagpipes 6.56 (.65) 3.88 (2.22) 5.00 (1.73) 2,768 92 6.88 (.44) 3,334 (1,373)Banjo 5.60 (1.12) 3.44 (1.69) 5.36 (1.19) 4,005 74 5.92 (1.32) 3,910 (1,682)Basketball 6.12 (1.36) 2.60 (1.67) 4.36 (1.29) 2,734 86 6.10 (1.61) 2,848 (1,205)Bicycle bell 5.80 (1.04) 2.72 (1.37) 4.72 (.94) 1,342 54 5.90 (1.24) 2,751 (1,055)Birds chirping 6.88 (.33) 3.12 (2.30) 6.04 (.98) 1,863 98 6.84 (.40) 2,204 (723)Blinds 4.36 (2.36) 4.24 (1.67) 3.08 (1.00) 2,217 40 3.70 (2.47) 5,742 (2,850)Blowing nose 6.08 (1.19) 3.16 (1.72) 2.16 (.94) 1,500 92 5.52 (1.71) 2,987 (852)Boat horn 6.28 (.94) 3.48 (1.64) 3.64 (1.22) 2,298 66 6.32 (.86) 3,043 (958)Bongos 4.80 (1.68) 3.72 (1.81) 4.88 (1.05) 1,401 38 4.60 (1.89) 3,533 (1,403)Bowling 6.52 (.82) 3.32 (2.08) 4.36 (1.11) 4,905 92 6.38 (1.10) 5,294 (1,605)Brushing teeth 6.88 (.44) 2.92 (2.00) 4.04 (.89) 3,375 98 6.80 (.50) 3,175 (1,362)Burp 6.64 (.95) 1.92 (1.41) 1.88 (1.05) 357 100 6.84 (.49) 1,511 (432)Camera 6.72 (.74) 3.24 (1.88) 4.56 (1.12) 1,019 98 6.88 (.31) 1,870 (463)Can crush 3.44 (1.92) 4.32 (1.49) 3.72 (.79) 1,277 6 2.85 (1.76) 4,756 (2,044)Can opening 5.44 (1.89) 3.16 (1.72) 4.48 (1.29) 189 60 4.64 (2.32) 2,244 (3,485)Car crash 5.88 (1.09) 4.12 (1.76) 1.52 (1.01) 2,832 78 6.20 (1.05) 3,623 (1,047)Car horn 6.80 (.50) 2.32 (1.57) 2.44 (1.39) 911 98 6.98 (.10) 1,562 (356)Cash register 6.54 (.72) 3.25 (1.92) 3.92 (.93) 3,398 96 6.45 (.88) 2,596 (1,149)Cat 6.68 (.63) 2.72 (1.90) 5.08 (1.58) 734 100 6.74 (.60) 2,082 (724)Chewing 5.29 (1.66) 3.33 (1.76) 3.42 (1.59) 3,250 70 5.25 (1.69) 4,385 (1,081)Chickens 6.36 (1.08) 3.52 (1.81) 3.76 (1.20) 1,082 84 6.34 (1.08) 2,597 (692)Child coughing 6.52 (1.19) 3.36 (1.89) 2.16 (.85) 2,832 98 6.74 (.49) 3,088 (1,091)Church bells 6.84 (.37) 2.60 (1.55) 5.04 (1.49) 3,181 96 6.78 (.51) 3,310 (1,363)Clapping 5.88 (1.27) 3.20 (1.89) 4.32 (1.35) 2,084 86 6.04 (1.28) 2,801 (976)Clearing throat 6.84 (.37) 2.96 (1.81) 3.08 (1.08) 1,219 98 6.86 (.35) 2,288 (729)Coin dropping 6.48 (.71) 2.80 (1.38) 4.68 (1.38) 2,159 98 6.52 (.78) 2,611 (738)Cork popping 4.44 (1.98) 3.12 (1.90) 3.88 (1.62) 137 36 3.58 (2.16) 4,054 (2,350)Cow 6.76 (.72) 2.36 (1.52) 4.20 (1.15) 1,044 100 6.94 (.24) 2,211 (1,340)Crickets 6.44 (1.08) 3.00 (1.73) 4.36 (1.80) 1,248 94 6.50 (.71) 2,793 (1,473)Crow 5.76 (1.85) 3.12 (1.67) 3.52 (1.58) 2,306 92 6.28 (1.12) 2,979 (957)Crumpling paper 5.48 (1.42) 3.32 (1.70) 3.64 (.86) 2,047 70 4.84 (1.89) 3,362 (1,523)Cuckoo clock 6.72 (.61) 3.20 (2.16) 4.04 (1.67) 3,280 98 6.86 (.40) 3,366 (1,406)Cutting paper 4.48 (1.64) 3.60 (1.61) 3.56 (1.00) 1,811 34 3.70 (1.95) 4,940 (2,603)Cymbals 6.40 (.96) 2.92 (1.29) 3.88 (1.42) 1,097 94 6.42 (.93) 2,329 (1,261)Dog barking 6.68 (.80) 2.76 (1.71) 3.96 (1.79) 893 96 6.74 (.67) 1,664 (532)Donkey 5.48 (1.71) 3.44 (1.92) 2.76 (1.48) 2,367 78 5.82 (1.77) 4,208 (1,865)Doorbell 6.76 (.52) 2.20 (1.41) 4.44 (1.23) 1,793 100 6.90 (.29) 1,719 (716)Door closing 6.64 (.57) 2.12 (1.24) 3.12 (1.13) 327 96 6.22 (.93) 1,877 (801)Drill 4.80 (1.58) 4.24 (1.33) 2.80 (1.04) 2,773 28 3.98 (2.02) 4,410 (1,650)Dropping ice in glass 6.52 (.82) 2.48 (1.50) 4.40 (1.44) 1,875 74 5.90 (1.42) 3,735 (1,844)Drums 6.48 (.87) 2.68 (2.01) 5.00 (1.22) 1,071 100 6.82 (.51) 2,168 (1,312)Duck 5.96 (1.21) 3.24 (1.67) 4.00 (1.19) 2,896 94 6.00 (1.48) 3,673 (1,227)Elephant 6.48 (1.08) 2.96 (1.72) 3.60 (1.26) 2,983 96 6.72 (1.23) 3,151 (1,159)Explosion 4.20 (1.76) 4.20 (1.83) 2.04 (1.27) 2,219 58 4.84 (1.97) 4,119 (2,450)Firecrackers 5.00 (1.61) 3.60 (1.63) 3.20 (1.44) 2,055 60 4.76 (2.06) 3,822 (1,700)Flute 6.00 (1.26) 3.72 (1.88) 6.08 (1.22) 3,772 90 6.14 (1.32) 4,426 (1,862)Frog 6.84 (.47) 2.52 (1.81) 4.28 (1.59) 1,370 96 6.80 (.72) 2,209 (1,416)Frying food 6.04 (1.10) 3.36 (1.66) 4.88 (1.45) 2,954 28 5.48 (1.22) 4,256 (1,659)Gargling 6.48 (1.00) 3.08 (2.00) 3.16 (1.40) 2,481 100 6.72 (.57) 2,445 (1,153)Glass breaking 6.60 (.91) 2.96 (1.93) 2.92 (1.26) 1,181 94 6.84 (.43) 2,015 (807)Gong 5.12 (1.45) 2.80 (1.47) 3.96 (.94) 2,989 62 5.08 (2.03) 4,230 (2,238)Guitar 5.80 (1.29) 4.24 (1.56) 5.88 (1.20) 4,124 62 5.38 (1.68) 4,853 (1,911)Gunshots 5.60 (1.50) 3.28 (1.77) 1.80 (1.32) 1,207 86 6.00 (1.34) 2,858 (1,001)Hammering 5.72 (1.34) 3.00 (1.50) 3.00 (1.04) 2,359 80 5.50 (1.51) 3,234 (1,135)Harmonica 6.64 (.57) 3.52 (2.12) 5.64 (1.32) 4,458 96 6.68 (.83) 3,597 (1,632)

Table continues.


Table continued.


Harp 5.52 (1.16) 3.64 (1.78) 5.96 (1.14) 1,892 82 6.10 (1.08) 2,851 (1,468)Helicopter 6.28 (.94) 3.40 (1.71) 4.04 (1.31) 5,936 94 6.54 (.78) 3,831 (2,114)Horse galloping 6.48 (.65) 3.20 (1.50) 4.92 (1.19) 2,504 98 6.50 (.81) 2,839 (1,063)Jackhammer 5.80 (1.29) 3.80 (1.63) 1.80 (.96) 2,515 34 5.38 (1.73) 4,308 (2,428)Knocking 6.84 (.37) 2.24 (1.42) 3.28 (1.34) 1,646 100 6.88 (.35) 2,230 (790)Laughing 6.80 (.50) 2.92 (2.16) 5.28 (1.51) 1,898 100 7.00 (.00) 2,217 (906)Lawn mower 6.48 (.71) 3.40 (1.73) 3.12 (1.20) 3,552 66 5.84 (1.24) 4,547 (2,264)Lion 5.96 (1.06) 3.56 (1.50) 3.16 (1.43) 2,275 88 6.12 (1.14) 3,122 (1,276)Machine gun 5.84 (1.37) 3.16 (1.65) 2.24 (1.30) 1,880 48 6.26 (.75) 3,005 (1,182)Monkey 5.12 (1.27) 3.64 (1.55) 3.52 (1.30) 2,681 52 4.90 (1.92) 5,062 (2,504)Mosquito 6.40 (.96) 3.36 (1.78) 1.84 (.94) 1,683 90 6.14 (1.17) 2,875 (1,167)Motorcycle 6.56 (.71) 3.20 (1.80) 3.48 (1.48) 3,745 94 6.68 (.66) 2,975 (1,085)Ocean 6.40 (1.00) 3.68 (1.93) 6.36 (.81) 6,083 76 5.82 (1.59) 5,573 (3,092)Organ 6.44 (.92) 3.32 (1.97) 5.08 (1.19) 2,298 92 6.64 (.77) 2,869 (1,021)Owl 6.16 (1.34) 2.72 (1.62) 4.88 (1.30) 1,607 100 6.58 (.73) 2,387 (834)Piano 6.40 (.76) 3.96 (2.28) 6.08 (.95) 1,427 98 6.38 (1.00) 2,813 (1,311)Pig 5.36 (1.32) 2.92 (1.32) 3.12 (.97) 4,260 98 6.32 (1.05) 3,711 (1,639)Pinball 3.32 (1.68) 4.92 (1.38) 3.96 (1.43) 4,327 36 3.37 (2.07) 6,101 (2,961)Ping-Pong 5.56 (1.50) 3.08 (1.55) 4.60 (1.08) 3,491 82 5.68 (1.95) 4,359 (1,924)Police siren 6.76 (.52) 2.52 (1.83) 2.12 (1.39) 2,391 98 6.86 (.35) 2,257 (1,068)Pouring water 6.76 (.52) 3.20 (2.00) 5.16 (1.14) 3,239 90 6.52 (.62) 3,603 (1,592)Pullchain lightswitch 3.64 (1.70) 3.76 (1.69) 3.68 (1.11) 447 12 3.00 (1.91) 4,750 (1,587)Rain 6.32 (.90) 3.00 (1.68) 5.48 (1.36) 3,842 90 6.00 (1.40) 3,721 (1,345)Rattlesnake 4.16 (1.84) 4.12 (1.76) 2.60 (1.35) 2,407 58 4.22 (2.00) 3,684 (1,414)River 6.08 (.95) 2.88 (1.76) 6.28 (1.02) 4,702 54 5.90 (1.25) 4,733 (1,686)Rooster 6.68 (.69) 3.12 (2.07) 3.84 (1.57) 2,113 96 6.86 (.35) 2,915 (1,426)Sandpaper 5.24 (1.30) 3.40 (1.68) 3.08 (1.22) 1,349 82 5.08 (1.99) 3,186 (2,420)Sawing 6.48 (.87) 3.32 (1.41) 3.36 (.95) 1,904 98 6.74 (.52) 2,557 (790)Saxophone 6.60 (.71) 3.92 (2.16) 6.16 (1.03) 5,215 90 6.50 (1.07) 3,621 (1,966)Scream 6.36 (1.32) 2.76 (1.59) 1.80 (.96) 991 100 6.80 (.46) 1,835 (507)Seal 4.76 (1.69) 3.48 (1.64) 3.80 (1.38) 1,393 50 4.56 (2.23) 4,119 (2,096)Sheep 6.36 (.91) 3.24 (1.83) 4.24 (1.45) 1,033 96 6.20 (1.29) 2,768 (944)Shuffling cards 5.88 (1.62) 3.76 (1.92) 4.36 (1.44) 3,951 70 5.16 (2.11) 6,289 (3,296)Sneeze 6.88 (.33) 2.68 (2.01) 2.64 (.95) 592 100 6.98 (.10) 1,739 (608)Snoring 6.48 (.96) 2.52 (1.53) 2.48 (1.33) 3,645 90 6.80 (.41) 3,630 (1,367)Sonar 2.21 (1.56) 4.46 (2.19) 3.46 (1.14) 2,211 18 2.65 (1.90) 6,643 (3,153)Stapler 3.58 (1.56) 3.87 (1.82) 3.70 (.93) 581 10 3.35 (1.96) 4,788 (2,598)Swords 4.76 (1.51) 3.76 (1.54) 3.00 (1.16) 1,875 68 4.70 (1.69) 4,138 (3,125)Tea kettle 6.20 (1.04) 2.72 (1.46) 3.80 (1.58) 4,713 64 6.48 (.74) 4,472 (1,352)Tearing paper 3.08 (2.06) 3.88 (2.19) 3.13 (1.19) 850 48 2.65 (1.88) 3,460 (1,343)Telephone 7.00 (.00) 2.52 (1.90) 3.72 (1.62) 1,500 100 7.00 (.00) 1,633 (673)Thunder 6.48 (1.05) 3.60 (2.08) 4.08 (1.93) 3,924 84 6.02 (1.86) 4,090 (2,701)Toilet flushing 6.96 (.20) 2.52 (1.94) 3.24 (1.01) 4,585 100 6.94 (.24) 3,008 (1,731)Train 6.56 (.82) 3.40 (1.87) 3.48 (1.36) 4,121 96 6.84 (.42) 3,300 (1,662)Truck 6.40 (.91) 3.84 (1.60) 2.72 (1.37) 5,061 60 5.90 (1.40) 5,013 (1,635)Trumpet 6.48 (.82) 2.96 (1.74) 4.68 (1.28) 1,680 98 6.48 (.88) 2,487 (867)Turning pages 6.32 (1.31) 2.96 (1.88) 3.80 (1.04) 3,697 74 5.78 (1.48) 4,391 (1,862)Typewriter (manual) 5.72 (1.75) 3.84 (2.10) 4.04 (.84) 2,368 26 5.82 (1.42) 3,593 (991)Velcro 3.67 (1.63) 4.33 (1.63) 3.21 (1.18) 1,289 8 3.05 (1.79) 3,763 (1,200)Violin 6.16 (1.07) 4.00 (2.02) 6.36 (.76) 4,062 94 6.10 (1.32) 4,114 (1,440)Water bubbling 6.24 (.83) 3.32 (1.44) 4.16 (1.28) 2,948 74 5.76 (1.18) 4,037 (1,225)Water draining 5.68 (1.55) 3.12 (1.64) 4.00 (1.38) 4,330 38 5.48 (1.24) 4,594 (1,579)Water dripping 4.92 (1.61) 3.08 (1.55) 3.52 (1.29) 766 76 4.42 (2.11) 4,102 (3,698)Whip 3.36 (1.58) 4.04 (1.77) 2.04 (.98) 1,279 22 3.72 (1.76) 3,675 (1,930)Whistle (instrument) 6.72 (.61) 2.40 (1.55) 3.08 (1.29) 888 100 6.86 (.40) 1,570 (521)Whistling (lips) 6.80 (.41) 2.76 (1.67) 4.84 (1.31) 1,468 96 6.65 (.64) 2,322 (804)Wind 6.48 (.65) 3.52 (1.85) 4.16 (1.18) 3,157 98 6.50 (.74) 3,028 (999)Wind chimes 6.28 (1.06) 3.32 (1.68) 5.44 (1.64) 1,927 74 6.50 (.92) 2,394 (562)

Table continues.


Table 3. 120 Sounds Listed in Descending Order of Familiarity (Most Least Familiar).

1. Telephone 31. Bagpipes 61. Boat horn 91. Ping-Pong2. Toilet flushing 32. Motorcycle 62. Helicopter 92. Harp3. Birds chirping 33. Train 63. Wind chimes 93. Crumpling paper4. Brushing teeth 34. Cash register 64. Water bubbling 94. Donkey5. Sneeze 35. Bowling 65. Tea kettle 95. Can opening6. Church bells 36. Child coughing 66. Owl 96. Pig7. Clearing throat 37. Dropping ice in glass 67. Violin 97. Chewing8. Frog 38. Coin dropping 68. Basketball 98. Sandpaper9. Knocking 39. Drums 69. Blowing nose 99. Gong10. Airplane 40. Elephant 70. River 100. Monkey11. Baby crying 41. Gargling 71. Zipper 101. Firecrackers12. Car horn 42. Horse galloping 72. Frying food 102. Water dripping13. Laughing 43. Lawn mower 73. Flute 103. Wolf14. Whistling (lips) 44. Sawing 74. Duck 104. Bongos15. Cow 45. Snoring 75. Lion 105. Drill16. Doorbell 46. Thunder 76. Car crash 106. Seal17. Police siren 47. Trumpet 77. Clapping 107. Swords18. Pouring water 48. Wind 78. Shuffling cards 108. Cutting paper19. Camera 49. Crickets 79. Machine gun 109. Cork popping20. Cuckoo clock 50. Organ 80. Bicycle bell 110. Blinds21. Whistle (instrument) 51. Cymbals 81. Guitar 111. Explosion22. Yawning 52. Mosquito 82. Jackhammer 112. Rattlesnake23. Cat 53. Ocean 83. Crow 113. Velcro24. Dog barking 54. Piano 84. Woodpecker 114. Pullchain lightswitch25. Rooster 55. Truck 85. Accordion 115. Stapler26. Burp 56. Chickens 86. Hammering 116. Can crush27. Door closing 57. Scream 87. Typewriter 117. Whip28. Harmonica 58. Sheep 88. Water draining 118. Pinball29. Glass breaking 59. Rain 89. Banjo 119. Tearing paper30. Saxophone 60. Turning pages 90. Gunshots 120. Sonar

Note. Stimuli with tied familiarity ranks are listed alphabetically.

Table continued.


Wolf 4.84 (1.82) 3.04 (1.37) 3.08 (1.41) 3,811 76 5.32 (1.86) 5,346 (2,426)Woodpecker 5.76 (1.16) 3.56 (1.71) 3.16 (1.55) 1,291 84 5.50 (1.49) 2,736 (1,166)Yawning 6.72 (.68) 2.24 (1.45) 4.24 (1.20) 2,699 100 6.88 (.33) 2,899 (924)Zipper 6.08 (.91) 3.00 (1.41) 3.44 (1.23) 1,131 90 5.50 (1.25) 2,674 (821)

Notes. Standard deviation is in parentheses following the mean. Famil, Complx, Pleas, and Conf ratings were made on 1–7 Likert scales. NAccscores and Conf ratings were based on the combined scores of 50 subjects from Studies 1 and 2; all other measures were based on the scores of 25subjects from either Study 1 or 2.

ness correlated only marginally with familiarity,r(118) = .20, p < .05, and not at all with com-plexity, r(118) = .06, suggesting the relative in-dependence of the pleasantness dimension inrating sound attributes.

The duration of each stimulus is listed in Ta-ble 6, with the shortest sounds listed at the top ofthe table. The overall mean duration of the

sounds was 2406 ms (SD = 1306 ms), with thefive shortest sounds being a cork popping, canopening, door closing, burp, and pullchainlightswitch (137-447 ms) and the five longestsounds being bowling, truck, saxophone, heli-copter, and ocean (4905-6083 ms). As expectedon the basis of Ballas and Howard’s (1987) andFabiani et al.’s (1996) research, we found no


Table 4. 120. Sounds Listed in Descending Order of Complexity (Most Least Complex).

1. Pinball 31. Firecrackers 61. Clapping 91. Laughing2. Accordion 32. Thunder 62. Cuckoo clock 92. Pig3. Sonar 33. Lion 63. Horse galloping 93. River4. Velcro 34. Woodpecker 64. Motorcycle 94. Coin dropping5. Can crush 35. Chickens 65. Pouring water 95. Gong6. Blinds 36. Harmonica 66. Blowing nose 96. Dog barking7. Drill 37. Wind 67. Can opening 97. Scream8. Guitar 38. Boat horn 68. Machine gun 98. Whistling (lips)9. Explosion 39. Seal 69. Airplane 99. Bicycle bell10. Car crash 40. Banjo 70. Baby crying 100. Cat11. Rattlesnake 41. Donkey 71. Birds chirping 101. Owl12. Whip 42. Helicopter 72. Cork popping 102. Tea kettle13. Violin 43. Lawn mower 73. Crow 103. Drums14. Piano 44. Sandpaper 74. Rooster 104. Sneeze15. Saxophone 45. Train 75. Water draining 105. Basketball16. Bagpipes 46. Child coughing 76. Gargling 106. Church bells17. Tearing paper 47. Frying food 77. Ping-Pong 107. Frog18. Stapler 48. Mosquito 78. Water dripping 108. Police siren19. Truck 49. Chewing 79. Wolf 109. Snoring20. Typewriter 50. Bowling 80. Crickets 110. Telephone21. Jackhammer 51. Crumpling paper 81. Hammering 111. Toilet flushing22. Pullchain lightswitch 52. Organ 82. Rain 112. Dropping ice in glass23. Shuffling cards 53. Sawing 83. Zipper 113. Whistle (instrument)24. Swords 54. Water bubbling 84. Clearing throat 114. Cow25. Bongos 55. Wind chimes 85. Elephant 115. Car horn26. Flute 56. Gunshots 86. Glass breaking 116. Knocking27. Ocean 57. Cash register 87. Trumpet 117. Yawning28. Harp 58. Camera 88. Turning pages 118. Doorbell29. Monkey 59. Duck 89. Brushing teeth 119. Door closing30. Cutting paper 60. Sheep 90. Cymbals 120. Burp

Note. Stimuli with tied complexity ranks are listed alphabetically.

correlation between the duration of sounds andthe accuracy of subjects’ naming responses[r(118) = .10]; there was also no correlation be-tween duration and ratings of confidence or fa-miliarity. Duration related weakly but signifi-cantly to complexity, r(118) = .24, p < .05, andpleasantness, r (118) = .29, p < .01, with longersounds tending to be rated as more complex andmore pleasant.

In summary, Study 1 yielded guidelines forscoring naming responses to a set of 120 com-puter-presented everyday sounds, as well as nor-mative data on how the sounds are perceived interms of their familiarity, complexity, and pleas-antness. Accuracy in naming sounds wasstrongly related to higher confidence in namingdecisions and higher ratings of familiarity, andsounds rated as more complex tended to be

named less accurately, less confidently, andrated as more unfamiliar. There were also weaktendencies for familiar sounds to be rated asmore pleasant, and for longer-duration sounds tobe rated as more complex and more pleasant.Procedurally, the study demonstrated that partic-ipants were able to accomplish several writtentasks – naming a sound, rating level of confi-dence, and rating sound attributes – within abrief period of time.

STUDY 2: ACCURACY AND SPEED OFIDENTIFYING SOUNDS

Study 2 was undertaken to accomplish the fol-lowing two goals: (a) to apply the scoring crite-ria developed in Study 1 to a new corpus of


Table 5. 120 Sounds Listed in Descending Order of Pleasantness (Most Least Pleasant).

1. Ocean 31. Camera 61. Tea kettle 91. Lawn mower2. Violin 32. Can opening 62. Turning pages 92. Pig3. River 33. Doorbell 63. Chickens 93. Blinds4. Saxophone 34. Dropping ice in glass 64. Can crush 94. Clearing throat5. Flute 35. Basketball 65. Telephone 95. Sandpaper6. Piano 36. Bowling 66. Stapler 96. Whistle (instrument)7. Birds chirping 37. Crickets 67. Pullchain lightswitch 97. Wolf8. Harp 38. Shuffling cards 68. Boat horn 98. Hammering9. Guitar 39. Clapping 69. Crumpling paper 99. Swords10. Harmonica 40. Frog 70. Elephant 100. Glass breaking11. Accordion 41. Sheep 71. Cutting paper 101. Drill12. Rain 42. Yawning 72. Crow 102. Donkey13. Wind chimes 43. Cow 73. Monkey 103. Truck14. Banjo 44. Water bubbling 74. Water dripping 104. Sneeze15. Laughing 45. Wind 75. Motorcycle 105. Rattlesnake16. Pouring water 46. Thunder 76. Train 106. Snoring17. Cat 47. Brushing teeth 77. Sonar 107. Car horn18. Organ 48. Cuckoo clock 78. Zipper 108. Baby crying19. Church bells 49. Helicopter 79. Chewing 109. Machine gun20. Bagpipes 50. Typewriter 80. Sawing 110. Blowing nose21. Drums 51. Duck 81. Knocking 111. Child coughing22. Horse galloping 52. Water draining 82. Toilet flush 112. Police siren23. Bongos 53. Dog barking 83. Velcro 113. Explosion24. Frying food 54. Gong 84. Firecrackers 114. Whip25. Owl 55. Pinball 85. Airplane 115. Burp26. Whistling (lips) 56. Cash register 86. Gargling 116. Mosquito27. Bicycle bell 57. Cork popping 87. Lion 117. Gunshots28. Coin dropping 58. Cymbals 88. Woodpecker 118. Jackhammer29. Trumpet 59. Rooster 89. Tearing paper 119. Scream30. Ping-Pong 60. Seal 90. Door closing 120. Car crash

Note. Stimuli with tied pleasantness ranks are listed alphabetically.

naming responses, and (b) to gather normativedata on oral response times for naming sounds(cf. Snodgrass & Yuditsky (1996), who mea-sured vocal naming times to the original Snod-grass and Vanderwart pictures). Additionally, amore sensitive measure of hearing ability, theHearing Screening Inventory (HSI; Coren &Hakstian, 1992), was employed as a screeningtool to exclude any potential subjects who mighthave uncorrected moderate-to-severe hearingloss. The HSI is a brief self-report inventorycontaining 12 questions about the quality ofhearing during everyday situations, such as un-derstanding the words to popular songs. Cross-validation studies with pure tone audiometryindicate that the HSI is 93.4% accurate in classi-fying individuals with moderate-to-severe hear-ing loss (Coren & Hakstian, 1992).

METHOD

ParticipantsA new sample of 25 introductory psychology col-lege students (21 females and 4 males, M age =18.9 years, SD = 1.1 years) participated for extracredit. Their mean HSI score was in the normalrange (M = 21.7, SD = 3.9). (HSI scores between12 and 27 are classified as normal, 28–37 as mildhearing loss, and 38–60 as marked (moderate-to-severe) hearing loss.) No subjects had HSI scoresin the moderate-to-severe range, and two subjectshad scores of 28 and 31, which placed them in themild hearing loss range. The mean sound namingaccuracy of these two participants (79.6%) wasactually slightly better than that of the sample as awhole (74.3%).


Table 6. 120 Sounds Listed in Ascending Order of Duration (Shortest Longest)

1. Cork popping 31. Sandpaper 61. Explosion 91. Brushing teeth2. Can opening 32. Frog 62. Lion 92. Cash register3. Door closing 33. Seal 63. Boat horn 93. Ping Pong4. Burp 34. Bongos 64. Organ 94. Lawn mower5. Pullchain lightswitch 35. Piano 65. Crow 95. Snoring6. Stapler 36. Whistling (lips) 66. Hammering 96. Turning pages7. Sneeze 37. Blowing nose 67. Donkey 97. Motorcycle8. Cat 38. Telephone 68. Typewriter 98. Flute9. Water dripping 39. Owl 69. Police siren 99. Airplane10. Tearing paper 40. Knocking 70. Rattlesnake 100. Wolf11. Whistle (instrument) 41. Trumpet 71. Gargling 101. Rain12. Dog barking 42. Mosquito 72. Horse gallop 102. Thunder13. Car horn 43. Doorbell 73. Jackhammer 103. Shuffling cards14. Scream 44. Baby crying 74. Monkey 104. Accordion15. Camera 45. Cutting paper 75. Yawning 105. Banjo16. Sheep 46. Birds chirping 76. Basketball 106. Violin17. Cow 47. Dropping ice in glass 77. Bagpipes 107. Train18. Drums 48. Swords 78. Drill 108. Guitar19. Chickens 49. Machine gun 79. Car crash 109. Pig20. Cymbals 50. Harp 80. Child coughing 110. Pinball21. Zipper 51. Laughing 81. Duck 111. Water draining22. Glass breaking 52. Sawing 82. Water bubbling 112. Harmonica23. Gunshots 53. Wind chimes 83. Frying food 113. Toilet flushing24. Clearing throat 54. Crumpling paper 84. Elephant 114. River25. Crickets 55. Firecrackers 85. Gong 115. Tea kettle26. Can crush 56. Clapping 86. Wind 116. Bowling27. Whip 57. Rooster 87. Church bells 117. Truck28. Velcro 58. Coin dropping 88. Pouring water 118. Saxophone29. Woodpecker 59. Sonar 89. Chewing 119. Helicopter30. Bicycle bell 60. Blinds 90. Cuckoo clock 120. Ocean

Note. Stimuli with tied durations are listed alphabetically.

ProcedureAs in Study 1, participants were presented randomorderings of practice and experimental sounds,with each sound presented once for identification.The major procedural differences were as follows:(a) participants were tested individually rather thanin groups; (b) responses were spoken into a micro-phone rather than written; (c) practice sounds werereadministered if additional instruction in trigger-ing the voice response key was needed; and (d)attribute ratings (familiarity, etc.) of the soundswere not made.

The primary task was to identify each sound asaccurately and quickly as possible. The participantinitiated the presentation of a sound by pressing abutton on a serial response box. The participantwas instructed to respond as soon as he or she wasready (even if the sound was still playing), tospeak loudly into the microphone, to avoid makingextraneous sounds, and to guess whenever neces-sary. After naming the sound, the participant rated

aloud his or her level of confidence in the accuracyof the identification by referring to a 7-point scaletaped to the tabletop.

The experimenter transcribed the participant’sverbatim identification response and confidencerating; vocal response time (RT) was measured bycomputer from the onset of the stimulus to the on-set of the oral response. On trials in which a noise(e.g., subject clearing throat) rather than the sub-ject’s identification response triggered the micro-phone, the circumstance was noted and the RT dis-carded (this happened only once during the 3,000experimental trials). On trials in which the sub-ject’s response was of insufficient volume to trig-ger the voice key, the circumstance was noted andthe RT discarded. This occurred on 129 (4.3%) ofthe experimental trials and appeared to occur mostfrequently with sounds that were more difficult toidentify (e.g., can opening) and sounds whose la-bels began with soft phonemes (e.g., sheep).


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Naming Accuracy and Confidence RatingsAccuracy of the spoken naming responses wasdetermined independently by two judges usingthe scoring criteria developed in Study 1. Of the3000 trials (120 experimental stimuli × 25 par-ticipants), there were only 24 scoring disagree-ments (representing 0.8% of the data); disagree-ments that were not mistakes were used to refineand reword scoring criteria. Mean naming accu-racy was 74.27% (SD = 27.65%), similar to thatobtained in Study 1. The slightly lower (6.7%)accuracy score of Study 2 may have reflecteddifferences between the speeded oral responseprocedure of Study 2 and the more relaxed writ-ten response procedure of Study 1. The meanconfidence rating in Study 2 was 5.79 (SD =1.16), quite similar to that obtained in Study 1(M = 5.95, SD = 1.09). As before, naming accu-racy correlated highly with confidence ratings,r(118) = .85, p < .001 (the correlation was .84 inStudy 1).

Naming accuracy and confidence rating dataobtained in Study 2 for the 120 sounds were av-eraged with the same measures taken in Study 1;these data are listed in the sixth and seventh col-umns of Table 2, and the sounds are listed indescending order of naming accuracy in Table 7.The range of accuracies confirms the availabilityof a large set of nonverbal everyday sounds thatare identifiable by the normal population andpotentially valuable in establishing baselineabilities for studies of auditory confrontationnaming. There is a large subset of 62 stimuli(sounds 1-62, Table 7) nameable at accuracylevels of 90% or higher (the choice of a 90%identifiability level is based on guidelines em-ployed in picture-naming research (e.g., Stimley& Noll, 1991)). This high level of accuracy en-sures their easy recognizability by the normalpopulation and, thus, their clinical utility forassessing anomia and their practical utility forprobing semantic memory concepts. The subsetof 62 easy-to-name sounds more than doublesthe number of such sounds referred to in pub-lished studies of sound identification. It is inter-esting to note that most of these sounds wereidentified with a multiplicity of responses (e.g.,

‘‘birds,’’ ‘‘bird whistling,’’ ‘‘singing birds,’’‘‘birds chirping’’) rather than a single commonlabel. When the criterion of an exact match be-tween a response and the modal sound label wasapplied, only seven sounds emerged as havingbeen given precisely the same label by over 90%of the participants (e.g., in this tabulation, a re-sponse like ‘‘violins’’ was not considered amatch for ‘‘violin’’). The seven sounds namedwith highly reliable labels were doorbell(100%), cash register (94%), baby crying (92%),harmonica (92%), helicopter (90%), motorcycle(90%), and owl (90%).

The sound set also includes subsets of 17mildly challenging sounds (sounds 63-79, Table7) nameable at accuracy levels of 75-89% and23 moderately challenging sounds (sounds 80-102, Table 7) nameable at accuracy levels of 50-74%. These sounds should provide an excellentrange of difficulty for exploring word-findingproblems in older adults, and will be particularlyuseful in providing opportunities for elicitingnaming responses that are within the correct se-mantic category but are either imprecise or notat the basic level of classification (such as‘‘car’’ for the sound of a large truck or ‘‘game’’for the sound of Ping-Pong). This represents alarger pool of mildly-to-moderately difficultitems than is available in the 60-picture BostonNaming Test – and without the vocabulary andcultural confounds engendered by BNT itemslike ‘‘trellis’’ and ‘‘yoke’’ (Hawkins et al.,1993).

Finally, the sound set includes 18 stronglychallenging sounds (sounds 103-120, Table 7)nameable at levels of accuracy under 50%. Thissubset of difficult-to-identify stimuli may beuseful, for instance, in studies exploring individ-ual differences in sound identification (e.g., doyoung adults with high IQs identify these soundsmore accurately and rapidly?) or the role ofidentification difficulty in recognition memory(e.g., do people show poorer long-term memoryfor sounds that are hard to identify?). It is inter-esting to note that at least 10 sounds (can crush,cork popping, frying food, jackhammer, mon-key, pullchain lightswitch, seal, stapler, Velcro,woodpecker) – mostly from the subset of diffi-cult-to-identify sounds – appear to be inconsis-


Table 7. 120 Sounds Listed in Descending Order of Naming Accuracy (Most Least Accurately Named).

1. Baby crying 31. Wind 61. Snoring 91. Gong2. Burp 32. Cash register 62. Zipper 92. Guitar3. Cat 33. Church bells 63. Lion 93. Can opening4. Cow 34. Dog barking 64. Basketball 94. Firecrackers5. Doorbell 35. Door closing 65. Clapping 95. Truck6. Drums 36. Elephant 66. Gunshots 96. Explosion7. Gargling 37. Frog 67. Chickens 97. Rattlesnake8. Knocking 38. Harmonica 68. Thunder 98. Accordion9. Laughing 39. Rooster 69. Woodpecker 99. Bicycle bell10. Owl 40. Sheep 70. Harp 100. River11. Scream 41. Train 71. Ping-Pong 101. Monkey12. Sneeze 42. Whistling (lips) 72. Sandpaper 102. Seal13. Telephone 43. Airplane 73. Hammering 103. Machine gun14. Toilet flush 44. Crickets 74. Car crash 104. Tearing paper15. Whistle (instrument) 45. Cymbals 75. Donkey 105. Blinds16. Yawning 46. Duck 76. Ocean 106. Bongos17. Birds chirping 47. Glass breaking 77. Turning pages 107. Water draining18. Brushing teeth 48. Helicopter 78. Water dripping 108. Cork popping19. Camera 49. Motorcycle 79. Wolf 109. Pinball20. Car horn 50. Violin 80. Banjo 110. Jackhammer21. Child coughing 51. Bagpipes 81. Dropping ice in glass 111. Cutting paper22. Clearing throat 52. Blowing nose 82. Water bubbling 112. Drill23. Coin dropping 53. Bowling 83. Wind chimes 113. Frying food24. Cuckoo clock 54. Crow 84. Chewing 114. Typewriter25. Horse gallop 55. Organ 85. Crumpling paper 115. Whip26. Piano 56. Flute 86. Shuffling cards 116. Sonar27. Pig 57. Mosquito 87. Swords 117. Pullchain lightswitch28. Police siren 58. Pouring water 88. Boat horn 118. Stapler29. Sawing 59. Rain 89. Lawn mower 119. Velcro30. Trumpet 60. Saxophone 90. Tea kettle 120. Can crush

Note. Stimuli with tied naming accuracy scores are listed alphabetically.

tently named because of their acoustic ambigu-ity and potential for multiple interpretations bythe casual listener. Some subjects, for instance,gave the response ‘‘rain’’ to the sound of fryingfood (note, however, that such an interpretation,although superficially similar to the actual stim-ulus, was not judged as an acoustically preciseinterpretation of the sound). Although not theprimary focus of this project, these sounds couldbe useful in cognitive psychology experiments,such as Ballas and Howard’s (1987) investiga-tion of parallels between speech homonyms andambiguous ‘‘sound homonyms’’ that are incon-sistently interpreted in the absence of contextualcues.

Response Time and Stimulus DurationParticipants’ mean oral response times to the

120 sounds can be found in column 8 of Table 1;the sounds are listed in ascending order of speedof response in Table 8, with the most rapidlyidentified stimuli listed at the top of the table.The overall mean RT was 3398 ms (SD = 1103ms). The five fastest RTs were to the burp, carhorn, whistle (instrument), telephone, and dogbarking sounds (1511–1664 ms) (interestingly,three of these are signal sounds whose purposeis indeed to provoke a rapid response); the fiveslowest RTs were to the ocean, blinds, pinball,shuffling cards, and sonar sounds (5573–6643ms). As expected, subjects who responded moreslowly to sounds tended to name the sounds lessaccurately, r(118) = –.67, p < .001, and to haveless confidence in the accuracy of their re-sponses, r(118) = –.67, p < .001.


4. Given the correlation between stimulus durationand the speed of the subject’s naming response, it isnevertheless interesting to note that visual inspectionof subjects’ records indicated that they understood theinstructions to respond as quickly as possible, even ifit meant responding during the presentation of a sound(e.g., mean RTs to 7 of the 10 longest sounds wereshorter than the duration of the sounds themselves).

Table 8. 120 Sounds Listed in Ascending Order of Vocal Response Time (Fastest Slowest Naming Response).

1. Burp 31. Chickens 61. Train 91. Seal2. Car horn 32. Coin dropping 62. Church bells 92 . Swords3. Whistle (instrument) 33. Zipper 63. Bagpipes 93 . Donkey4. Telephone 34. Woodpecker 64. Crumpling paper 94 . Gong5. Dog barking 35. Bicycle bell 65. Cuckoo clock 95. Frying food6. Doorbell 36. Sheep 66. Tearing paper 96. Jackhammer7. Sneeze 37. Crickets 67. Bongos 97. Ping-Pong8. Scream 38. Clapping 68. Typewriter 98. Chewing9. Camera 39. Piano 69. Harmonica 99. Turning pages10. Door closing 40. Horse galloping 70. Pouring water 100. Drill11. Glass breaking 41. Basketball 71. Saxophone 101. Flute12. Baby crying 42. Harp 72. Car crash 102. Tea kettle13. Cat 43. Gunshots 73. Snoring 103. Lawn mower14. Drums 44. Organ 74. Duck 104. Water draining15. Birds chirping 45. Mosquito 75. Whip 105. River16. Frog 46. Yawning 76. Rattlesnake 106. Pullchain lightswitch17. Cow 47. Rooster 77. Pig 107. Can crush18. Laughing 48. Motorcycle 78. Rain 108. Stapler19. Knocking 49. Crow 79. Dropping ice in glass 109. Guitar20. Can opening 50. Blowing nose 80. Velcro 110. Cutting paper21. Police siren 51. Machine gun 81. Firecrackers 111. Truck22. Clearing throat 52. Toilet flushing 82. Helicopter 112. Monkey23. Whistling (lips) 53. Wind 83. Banjo 113. Bowling24. Cymbals 54. Boat horn 84. Water bubbling 114. Wolf25. Owl 55. Child coughing 85. Cork popping 115. Accordion26. Wind chimes 56. Lion 86. Airplane 116. Ocean27. Gargling 57. Elephant 87. Thunder 117. Blinds28. Trumpet 58. Brushing teeth 88. Water dripping 118. Pinball29. Sawing 59. Sandpaper 89. Violin 119. Shuffling cards30. Cash register 60. Hammering 90. Explosion 120. Sonar

Note. Stimuli with tied response times are listed alphabetically.

As in Study 1, there was no correlation be-tween the duration of the sounds and either theaccuracy of subjects’ naming responses, r (118)= –.01, or their level of confidence in the nam-ing responses, r(118) = .13. However, durationdid correlate with RT, r(118) = .56, p < .001:When presented longer sounds, participants be-gan their naming responses more slowly. This isto be expected given that sounds were edited tothe minimal length that allowed the ‘‘soundevent’’ to unfold (thus, longer events shouldrequire more listening before responding).4

In summary, Study 2 revealed that the previ-ously developed criteria for scoring sound nam-ing accuracy can be employed by independentjudges at a high level of agreement. The currentset of 120 stimuli contains 62 items that are easyto identify, 40 that are mildly-to-moderately dif-

ficult, and 18 that are hard to identify; further-more, 10 items from the last two groups tendedto elicit multiple interpretations because of theiracoustic similarity to other sounds. Finally,correlational analyses revealed the followingrelationships: (a) accurately named sounds wererated more confidently; (b) rapidly namedsounds tended to be named more accurately andwith greater confidence; and (c) longer soundstended to be named more slowly.


STUDY 3: CATEGORIZATION OF SOUNDS

The importance of categories in simplifying andstructuring human information processing isclear, and several taxonomies have been offeredfor describing the structure of mental categories.For example, Rosch’s (1975, 1978) pioneeringwork introduced the notions of superordinate,base level, and subordinate categories, with nat-ural objects initially classified as base-level cat-egory members, and category members differingin their degree of prototypicality. Research incognitive psychology using a variety of tech-niques (e.g., priming, rating, visual confronta-tion naming) strongly suggests that knowledgeof objects, at least as assessed through pictures,is organized within long-term memory by natu-ral, base-level semantic categories rather than,for instance, categories based on visual-percep-tual features like color or size.

A considerable amount of normative researchhas established guidelines for how people cate-gorize words (e.g., Battig & Montague, 1969).These word category norms have also been usedby other researchers to categorize the naming ofpictures (e.g., Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980).In the present project, however, we have notfound word-based category norms to be espe-cially helpful in determining appropriate cate-gory placements for the names of sounds. Manyof the sounds in Studies 1 and 2 do not appear inlists of word or picture category norms, and,upon reflection, it seems unwise to try to catego-rize sounds with labels that were obtainedthrough judging words. We have located a fewacoustic categorization schemes for everydaysounds devised by other researchers, but havefound the number and types of categories pro-posed to be either limited, artificial, or difficultto apply. For instance, Gaver (1993) noted thatsound effects libraries typically list sounds bythe context in which they are heard (e.g., traffic,office, household) – a system which has the dis-advantage of not using mutually exclusive cate-gories (e.g., is a telephone ringing sound prop-erly classified as an office or household item?).He proposed, as a beginning, a physics-basedhierarchical scheme for classifying sounds bytype of interacting materials (vibrating objects,

aerodynamic sounds, and liquid sounds), withnested subcategories of more specific types ofsounds (e.g., two types of liquid sounds: drip-ping and splashing). Other researchers have pro-posed different classification schemes (e.g.,Porteous and Mastin’s (1985) division of theurban soundscape into natural, human, activity,indicator, and neighbor sounds). The most com-mon approach, however, has been for investiga-tors to create their own pragmatic, ad hoc cate-gorizations of everyday sounds (e.g., Ballas’(1993) description of sound types as signals,modulated noise, multiple mechanical tran-sients, discrete impacts, and water sounds; Lasset al.’s (1982) classification of sounds as animal,inanimate, musical, and human; van Lancker etal.’s (1988) categorization of sounds as humanvocalizations, animal vocalizations, inanimatenoises, and event sounds). Because there is noagreed-upon, all-encompassing system of classi-fying everyday sounds, we decided to take anempirical approach to the problem and simplyask subjects to generate their own classificationsof sound stimuli.

In an early pilot effort – before we had edited,digitized sounds available to use as stimuli – weasked nine subjects to read, imagine, and thencategorize brief written descriptions of sounds.The subjects had unlimited time to sort the 150written descriptions into any number of clusters.The results showed that the number of catego-ries generated by subjects ranged from 12 to 28,with a mean of 19. Several categories (e.g., ani-mal sounds, human sounds, musical instruments,tools) resembled the ad hoc categories typicallycreated by researchers, appeared with consis-tency across subjects, and showed good agree-ment on the sounds that were members. How-ever, there were also several personal and idio-syncratic categories typically used by one or twoindividuals (e.g., sounds heard on a New Yorkstreet corner, loud sounds). Our intention inStudies 3A and 3B was to use the same generalapproach that we used in the pilot test – ask sub-jects to categorize sounds – but to do so in a waythat yielded better agreement and fewer ‘‘minor-ity’’ categories.


STUDY 3A : FREE CLASSIFICATION

The purpose of this study was to develop a listof category labels that could be used to classifythe environmental set of 120 sounds.

METHOD

ParticipantsThirty-eight introductory psychology college stu-dents (27 females and 11 males; M age = 19.4years, SD = 2.0 years) participated for extra credit.The mean HSI score was in the normal range (M =20.1, SD = 4.1). No participants had scores in themoderate-to-severe range, and two participants hadscores of 29 and 33, consistent with a mild hearingimpairment. The mean naming accuracy of thesetwo subjects (76.7%) was similar to the mean nam-ing accuracy for participants in Studies 1 and 2(77.6%).

ProcedureTesting was accomplished in small groups of 1-5individuals. Answers were recorded in writing onslips of paper containing two numbered blanks(each 8 cm long) for the name and category de-scription of the sound. Participants identified andcategorized one of two randomly assigned sets of60 sounds using a modification of McAdams’(1993) ‘free classification’ procedure. After listen-ing to two repetitions of a sound separated by 2 s,participants were allowed 15 s to write both thename of the sound and a brief description of thecategory to which the sound belonged. Participantswere told that categorization involves placingsomething with other objects that have similarcharacteristics and are members of the same group.The category description could be at whateverlevel of abstraction the subject chose (e.g., onesubject might categorize the sound of birds chirp-ing at the basic level of ‘‘bird;’’ another mightclassify it at the superordinate level of ‘‘animal;’’yet another might create a perceptual category of‘‘high-pitched, whistle-like sounds’’). Subjectswere encouraged to develop and/or reuse any num-ber of category labels of their own choosing, withthe constraint that each sound be given only one‘‘best’’ category label. Subjects were also asked toavoid giving simple associations to the sounds(e.g., to avoid using a category label like ‘‘saddle’’or ‘‘cowboy’’ for the sound of a horse neighing).

Once all 60 sounds were identified and catego-rized, each sound was played again in order to al-low subjects to review and, if necessary, change

their category descriptions. During the review pro-cedure each sound was presented once with a 5 sinterval between stimuli. The entire experimentaltask was preceded by a practice procedure that re-quired the generation of names and category labelsfor three pictures (elephant, snake, glass) and fourpractice sounds (clock ticking, cowbell ringing,horse neighing, squeaky door opening). The nam-ing data gathered for the 60 sounds were notscored and were used only to clarify, if needed, thenature of the proposed category.


Free classification yielded a variety of categorydescriptions of the sounds. Two judges indepen-dently reviewed the descriptions offered by sub-jects and grouped those descriptions that werejudged as essentially equivalent in meaning intothe same category (e.g., the category name ‘‘in-strument’’ was considered equivalent to themodal phrase, ‘‘musical instrument’’); disagree-ments were discussed and resolved. Any cate-gory used by over 33% of the sample to classifya sound was culled for later use in Study 3B.There were 23 such categories: 4-legged animal,accident, air transportation, bathroom, bird,farm animal, game/recreation, ground transpor-tation, human, hygiene, insect, kitchen, musicalinstrument, nature, pet, reptile/amphibian, sick-ness, signal, sleep, tool, water/liquid, weapon,and weather. Categories that classified only onesound (e.g., the category ‘‘photography’’ for thesound of a camera) were not culled because oftheir limited usefulness (cf. Snodgrass &Vanderwart, 1980). Three additional categories(household, paper, and machine) that did notmeet the 33% inclusion criterion were neverthe-less culled from subjects’ responses for later usein order to provide potential vehicles for classi-fying hard-to-categorize sounds; furthermore,the category ‘‘other’’ was added to the list inorder to give future subjects an option to usewhenever they are unable to classify a sound.Finally, the wording of a few category labelswas altered slightly from the modal labels inorder to avoid overlap (e.g., ‘‘aircraft’’ and‘‘transportation’’ were changed to ‘‘air trans-portation’’ and ‘‘ground transportation’’). In


summary, a total of 27 sound category labelswere generated in Study 3A; these can be foundas the bold items in Table 9.

STUDY 3B: CONSTRAINED CLASSIFI-CATION

The purpose of this study was to determine howa new sample of participants would apply thecategory labels generated in Study 3A to thecollection of 120 experimental sounds. Thisstudy employed a ‘‘pure’’ classification task inwhich the stimuli themselves were not overtlynamed.

METHOD

ParticipantsForty-nine introductory psychology college stu-dents (35 females and 14 males; M age = 20.6years, SD = 3.3 years) participated for extra credit.The mean HSI score was in the normal range (M =20.8, SD = 4.7). No subjects had scores in themoderate-to-severe range, and five subjects hadscores of 28 or higher (M = 30.2, SD = 2.3), con-sistent with a mild hearing impairment. Becausesound-naming data were not gathered in this study,we were unable to compare the sound identifica-tion abilities of these five participants with thenorms established in earlier studies. However, vi-sual inspection of the data suggested that their cat-egorizations of the sounds did not differ substan-tially from those of the larger group.

ProcedureTesting was accomplished in small groups of 1-5individuals. Participants categorized one of tworandomly assigned sets of 60 sounds using a con-strained classification procedure (McAdams, 1993)in which they listened to two presentations of astimulus separated by 2 s. They were allowed 15 sto select from a handout the single ‘‘best’’ cate-gory label for the sound and to write the label onan answer sheet. As before, they were instructed tothink about how the sound might be classified withother things that are similar and are members ofthe same group. Participants were randomly as-signed one of two versions of the handout contain-ing the 27 category labels generated in Study 3A.In one version of the handout the labels were listedin alphabetical order and in the other version the

labels were listed in reverse alphabetical order.The category label ‘‘Other’’ always appeared atthe end of the list and its use was discouraged. Atthe end of the experimental task each sound wasre-presented once, at 5 s intervals, to allow partici-pants to review and, if necessary, change their cat-egory choice.

Before categorizing the experimental sounds,subjects completed two practice procedures. In thefirst practice procedure subjects selected categorylabels for three line drawings (apple, bed, kite)from a handout with 10 picture-oriented categorylabels like ‘‘clothing,’’ ‘‘furniture,’’ and ‘‘vegeta-ble.’’ In the second practice procedure subjectsselected category labels for the four Study 3Apractice sounds from the handout of 27 sound cate-gory labels. Instructions noted the followingpoints: (a) although several possible category la-bels could be selected to describe a stimulus, thetask was to pick the ‘‘best’’ category; (b) categorylabels could be reused for different stimuli; and (c)all category labels did not have to be used (recallthat each subject categorized only half of the 120sounds).


The results of the constrained classification taskare presented in Tables 9 and 10. Table 9 liststhe 27 categories, the sounds that were assignedto them, and scores representing the percentageof subjects who agreed on a sound’s categoryplacement. For example, 26 of 28 subjects(93%) agreed that the chickens sound was bestplaced in the farm animal category, a value thatrepresents a good fit between the chickens soundand the farm animal category; the two remainingsubjects believed that the chickens sound wasbest placed in the bird category (7% agreement),a value that represents a poor fit between thechickens sound and the bird category. The rank-ing of sounds within each category in Table 9 isin order of their category placement score; thus,a sound that was assigned to the same categoryby all or most subjects will be found near the topof that category list. Sounds within a categorythat had tied scores are listed alphabetically, andsounds assigned to a category by fewer than20% of the subjects are not listed in the table.Some of the sounds in Table 9 are listed undermore than one category (e.g., 61% of the sub-


Table 9. Placement of Sounds Within 27 Categories.

Animal (four-legged)Elephant 95%Lion 89%Wolf 89%Horse galloping 86%Donkey 32%*Can crush 29%Seal 25%*Monkey 24%*

AccidentCar crash 95%Glass breaking 81%

Air transportationAirplane 100%Helicopter 95%

BathroomToilet flushing 100%Water draining 54%

BirdCrow 90%Owl 81%Birds chirping 79%Duck 61%Woodpecker 57%Monkey 52%

Farm animalCow 95%Chickens 93%Rooster 93%Sheep 93%Pig 81%Donkey 61%Duck 36%*

Game/recreationBowling 96%Basketball 95%Ping-Pong 86%Pinball 71%Shuffling cards 67%Firecrackers 43%

Ground transportationMotorcycle 100%Train 92%Truck 79%Car horn 61%Bicycle bell 29%*Boat horn 24%*

HouseholdDoor closing 76%Blinds 54%Doorbell 48%*Telephone 43%*Knocking 24%*

HumanLaughing 100%Burp 95%Baby crying 90%Clearing throat 86%Scream 76%Clapping 71%Whistling 67%Chewing 64%Yawning 24%*Blowing nose 21%*

HygieneBrushing teeth 90%Gargling 79%

InsectMosquito 95%Crickets 71%

KitchenDropping ice in glass 71%Tea kettle 75%Frying food 32%Cork popping 21%*

MachineCash register 90%Camera 86%Typewriter 86%Lawn mower 64%Blinds 25%*

Musical instrumentAccordion 100%Banjo 100%Drums 100%Flute 100%Guitar 100%Harmonica 100%Harp 100%Piano 100%Saxophone 100%Organ 96%Violin 96%Bagpipes 95%Cymbals 93%Bongos 90%Trumpet 89%Gong 61%Wind chimes 57%

NatureOcean 68%Seal 39%Crickets 29%*River 25%*Birds chirping 21%*

Paper WeaponCrumpling paper 100% Gunshots 96%Turning pages 100% Explosion 95%Cutting paper 71% Machine gun 95%Tearing paper 61% Whip 86%Velcro 57% Swords 76%Sandpaper 29%* Firecrackers 39%*Shuffling cards 24%* Jackhammer 29%*

Pet WeatherCat 95% Thunder 90%Dog barking 90% Wind 90%

Rain 68%Reptile/amphibian Frying food 29%*Frog 95%Rattlesnake 79% OtherSeal 21%* Coin dropping 33%

Zipper 33%Sickness Cork popping 32%Child coughing 95%Sneeze 86%Blowing nose 71%

SignalSonar 86%Church bell 82%Police siren 81%Whistle (instrument) 71%Bicycle bell 64%Boat horn 62%Cuckoo clock 61%Doorbell 52%Knocking 43%Telephone 43%*Gong 39%*Car horn 32%*Whistling 24%*

SleepSnoring 96%Yawning 71%

ToolSawing 95%Hammering 90%Drill 62%Jackhammer 57%Stapler 50%Pullchain lightswitch 39%Sandpaper 32%Can opening 29%Woodpecker 29%*

Water/liquidPouring water 96%Water bubbling 93%River 75%Water dripping 50%Water draining 46%*Frying food 25%*

Note. Each number represents the percentage of subjects assigning a sound to a category (e.g., 95% of the subjects who listened to theelephant sound assigned it to the four-legged animal category). Sounds assigned to a category by fewer than 20% of the subjects arenot listed in the table. Sound stimuli were randomly divided into two sets of 60 for categorization: One set was evaluated by 21subjects and the other set by 28 subjects.* Indicates that the sound was assigned equally frequently or more frequently to another category.


jects placed the duck sound into the bird cate-gory and 36% placed it into the farm animal cat-egory, resulting in the duck stimulus being listedtwice in the table). We followed Snodgrass andVanderwart’s (1980) procedure for multiple list-ings of stimuli in different categories: An aster-isk next to the listing(s) of the sound with thelowest category placement score indicates thatthe sound appears with a higher score in anothercategory.

The data in Table 9 indicate that categoriesdiffered widely in size, ranging from sevensmall categories with only two members (acci-dent, air transportation, bathroom, hygiene, in-sect, pet, and sleep) to five large categories witheight or more members (4-legged animal, hu-man, musical instrument, signal, and tool). In-spection of the data also suggest the followingobservations: (a) The musical instrument cate-gory was both the largest category, with 17members, as well as a category in which soundswere placed at very high levels of agreement. (b)Almost half of the sounds of another large cate-gory, the signal category, were categorized atlow levels of agreement (under 50%), with fourof the sounds appearing at higher levels ofagreement in other categories. (c) The ‘‘other’’category was used sparingly, with its threemembers possessing low category placementscores. (d) The 10 hard-to-identify, ambiguoussounds that had yielded multiple naming re-sponses in Studies 1 and 2 also tended to yieldunusual category placements in this study. Forinstance, the monkey sound was most frequentlyplaced in the bird category; 29% of the subjectsbelieved the can crush sound to be the sound ofa 4-legged animal; 25% categorized the sound ofblinds as that of a machine; and over half of thesubjects assigned the frying food sound to theweather and water/liquid categories, suggestinga confusion with the sound of rain. (e) Futureinvestigators of sound categorization who wishto reduce the number of categories might con-sider consolidating some of the smaller catego-ries (e.g., combining the two-member hygieneand bathroom categories; eliminating the two-member sleep category, with its members likelyrecategorized as human sounds).

Table 10 contains a listing of the 120 soundsin alphabetical order, with their category mem-berships and category placement scores nestedunderneath. As expected, the ease with whichsounds were placed into categories variedwidely across stimuli. Overall, 50 sounds wereplaced with high agreement (90% and above)into categories, 58 were placed with mild-to-moderate levels of agreement (50-89%), and 12were placed with low levels of agreement (49%and below). Some stimuli – like the sounds ofairplane, laughing, and toilet flushing – wereclassified with perfect agreement by subjectsinto the categories of air transportation, human,and bathroom, respectively. Other sounds – likecan crush, pullchain lightswitch, and zipper –were difficult to categorize, with subjects usingnumerous category labels at low levels of agree-ment. Informal inspection of the data suggestedthat difficult-to-categorize sounds also tended tobe difficult-to-name sounds (e.g., the sounds ofcan crush, cork popping, and pullchain light-switch showed low levels of agreement in boththe naming tasks of Studies 1 and 2 and the con-strained categorization task of Study 3B). How-ever, the relationship between ease of namingand ease of categorizing was by no means per-fect: Some sounds named at low levels of accu-racy in Studies 1 and 2 were nevertheless cate-gorized at high levels of agreement in Study 3B.For example, although only 18% of the subjectscorrectly named the sonar sound and only 38%correctly named the bongos sound, 86% and90% agreed on their appropriate placementswithin the signal and musical instrument catego-ries, respectively. Conversely, some sounds thatwere very accurately named in Studies 1 and 2(e.g., cuckoo clock, knocking, and telephone)generated disagreement among subjects as totheir best category placement. For instance, al-though 100% of the subjects agreed on theirnaming of the telephone sound, there was dis-agreement as to its most appropriate categoryplacement, with 43% placing it in the householdcategory, 43% in the signal category, and 14%in the machine category.


Table 10. Category Assignments for 120 Sounds.

AccordionMusical instrument 100%

AirplaneAir transportation 100%

Baby cryingHuman 90%Sleep 10%

BagpipesMusical instrument 95%Game/recreation 5%

BanjoMusical instrument 100%

BasketballGame/recreation 95%Tool 5%

Bicycle bell1

Signal 64%Ground transportation 29%Game/recreation 4%Machine 4%

Birds chirpingBird 79%Nature 21%

Blinds1

Household 54%Machine 25%Tool 7%Accident 4%Kitchen 4%Other 4%Signal 4%

Blowing noseSickness 71%Human 21%Hygiene 7%

Boathorn1

Signal 62%Ground transportation 24%Water/liquid 10%Other 5%

BongosMusical instrument 90%Game/recreation 5%Tool 5%

BowlingGame/recreation 96%Other 4%

Brushing teethHygiene 90%Bathroom 10%

BurpHuman 95%Farm animal 5%

Camera1

Machine 86%Game/recreation 7%Human 4%Other 4%

Can crush1

4-legged animal 29%Human 14%Paper 14%Household 11%Other 11%Tool 11%Farm animal 4%Game/recreation 4%Kitchen 4%

Can openingTool 29%Kitchen 18%Household 14%Machine 14%Other 11%Water/liquid 7%Weapon 7%

Car crashAccident 95%Game/recreation 5%

Car horn1

Ground transportation 61%Signal 32%Accident 4%Machine 4%

Cash registerMachine 90%Signal 10%

CatPet 95%4-legged animal 5%

ChewingHuman 64%Kitchen 18%Other 14%Household 4%

ChickensFarm animal 93%Bird 7%

Child coughingSickness 95%Human 5%

Church bellsSignal 82%Musical instrument 14%Household 4%

ClappingHuman 71%Game/recreation 14%Tool 11%Signal 4%

Clearing throatHuman 86%Sickness 14%

Coin dropping1

Other 33%Accident 19%Game 14%Household 14%Human 14%Signal 5%

Cork popping1

Other 32%Kitchen 21%Game/recreation 14%Household 11%Tool 7%Human 4%Machine 4%Water/liquid 4%Weapon 4%

CowFarm animal 95%4-legged animal 5%

CricketsInsects 71%Nature 29%

CrowBird 90%Reptile/amphibian 5%Tool 5%

Crumpling paperPaper 100%

Cuckoo clock1

Signal 61%Household 18%Machine 14%Kitchen 4%Sleep 4%

Cutting paper1

Paper 71%Tool 10%Ground transportation 5%Insect 5%Nature 5%Other 5%

Cymbals1

Musical instrument 93%Accident 4%Signal 4%

Dog barkingPet 90%4-legged animal 10%

Donkey1

Farm animal 61%4-legged animal 32%Nature 4%Bird 4%

DoorbellSignal 52%Household 48%

Door closingHousehold 76%Tool 14%Weapon 10%

DrillTool 62%Ground transportation 19%Machine 19%

Dropping ice in glass1

Kitchen 71%Water/liquid 10%Game/recreation 5%Household 5%Human 5%Other 5%

DrumsMusical instrument 100%

Duck1

Bird 61%Farm animal 36%Nature 4%

Elephant4-legged animal 95%Reptile/amphibian 5%

ExplosionWeapon 95%Accident 5%

FirecrackersGame/recreation 43%Weapon 39%Musical instrument 18%

FluteMusical instrument 100%

FrogReptile/amphibian 95%Farm animal 5%

Table continues.


Table 10. Table continued.

Frying foodKitchen 32%Weather 29%Water/liquid 25%Bathroom 7%Nature 7%

GarglingHygiene 79%Water/liquid 14%Human 7%

Glass breakingAccident 81%Kitchen 19%

GongMusical instrument 61%Signal 39%

GuitarMusical instrument 100%

GunshotsWeapon 96%Game/recreation 4%

HammeringTool 90%Household 5%Signal 5%

HarmonicaMusical instrument 100%

HarpMusical instrument 100%

HelicopterAir transportation 95%Accident 5%

Horse galloping4-legged animal 86%Farm animal 14%

Jackhammer1

Tool 57%Weapon 29%Machine 10%Ground transportation 5%

Knocking1

Signal 43%Household 24%Human 19%Bathroom 5%Other 5%Tool 5%

LaughingHuman 100%

Lawn mower1

Machine 64%Ground transportation 18%Tool 7%Air transportation 4%Game/recreation 4%Household 4%

Lion1

4-legged animal 89%Nature 4%Pet 4%Reptile/amphibian 4%

Machine gunWeapon 95%Machine 5%

MonkeyBird 52%4-legged animal 24%Nature 19%Pet 5%

MosquitoInsect 95%Nature 5%

MotorcycleGround transportation 100%

OceanNature 68%Water/liquid 18%Weather 14%

OrganMusical instrument 96%Game/recreation 4%

OwlBird 81%Nature 14%Insect 5%

PianoMusical instrument 100%

PigFarm animal 81%4-legged animal 14%Reptile/amphibian 5%

Pinball1

Game/recreation 71%Other 7%Accident 4%Ground transportation 4%Household 4%Human 4%Kitchen 4%Signal 4%

Ping-Pong1

Game/recreation 86%4-legged animal 4%Machine 4%Musical instrument 4%Tool 4%

Police sirenSignal 81%Accident 14%Ground transportation 5%

Pouring waterWater/liquid 96%Bathroom 4%

Pullchain lightswitch1

Tool 39%Machine 18%Household 14%Weapon 14%Insect 4%Other 4%Paper 4%Signal 4%

Rain1

Weather 68%Nature 14%Water/liquid 7%Bathroom 4%Kitchen 4%Machine 4%

Rattlesnake1

Reptile/amphibian 79%Insect 11%Nature 7%Musical instrument 4%

RiverWater/liquid 75%Nature 25%

RoosterFarm animal 93%Bird 7%

SandpaperTool 32%Paper 29%Household 14%Hygiene 7%Machine 7%Human 4%Insect 4%Other 4%

SawingTool 95%Household 5%

SaxophoneMusical instrument 100%

ScreamHuman 76%Accident 14%Signal 10%

SealNature 39%4-legged animal 25%Reptile/amphibian 21%Bird 7%Pet 4%Water 4%

SheepFarm animal 93%4-legged animal 7%

Shuffling cards1

Game/recreation 67%Paper 24%Human 5%Other 5%

SneezeSickness 86%Human 14%

SnoringSleep 96%Human 4%

Sonar1

Signal 86%Instrument 11%Insect 4%

Stapler1

Tool 50%Weapon 18%Household 14%Machine 11%Paper 4%Signal 4%

SwordsWeapon 76%Kitchen 19%Tool 5%

Tea kettle1

Kitchen 75%Machine 7%Weather 7%Signal 4%Tool 4%Water 4%

Table continues.


Table 10. Table continued.

Tearing paper1

Paper 61%Other 14%Tool 11%Household 7%Kitchen 4%Machine 4%

TelephoneHousehold 43%Signal 43%Machine 14%

ThunderWeather 90%Nature 10%

Toilet flushingBathroom 100%

TrainGround transportation 92%Musical instrument 4%Signal 4%

Truck1

Ground transportation 79%Machine 11%Tool 7%Household 4%

TrumpetMusical instrument 89%Signal 11%

Turning pagesPaper 100%

Typewriter1

Machine 86%Signal 10%Paper 5%

Velcro1

Paper 57%Other 14%Game/recreation 10%Accident 5%Household 5%Human 5%Machine 5%

ViolinMusical instrument 96%Sleep 4%

Water bubbling1

Water/liquid 93%Kitchen 4%Nature 4%

Water drainingBathroom 54%Water/liquid 46%

Water dripping1

Water/liquid 50%Tool 14%Bathroom 7%Musical instrument 7%

Other 7%Game/recreation 4%Kitchen 4%Machine 4%Signal 4%

WhipWeapon 86%Game/recreation 14%

Whistle (instrument)Signal 71%Game/recreation 19%Nature 10%

Whistling (lips)1

Human 67%Signal 24%Bird 5%Pet 5%

WindWeather 90%Air transportation 5%Nature 5%

Wind chimesMusical instrument 57%Signal 14%Weather 14%Household 5%Nature 5%Other 5%

Wolf1

4-legged animal 89%Nature 4%Pet 4%Signal 4%

Woodpecker1

Bird 57%Tool 29%Other 10%Weapon 5%

YawningSleep 71%Human 24%Sickness 5%

Zipper1

Other 33%Human 19%Bathroom 10%Machine 10%Paper 10%Accident 5%Game/recreation 5%Household 5%Tool 5%

Note. Sounds are listed in alphabetical order. Category assignments for each sound are listed in descending numerical order (tiedcategory assignments are listed in alphabetical order). Sound stimuli were randomly divided into two sets of 60 for categorization. Oneset was evaluated by 21 subjects and the other set by 28 subjects.1 Indicates that the total does not equal 100% due to rounding to the nearest whole number.

GENERAL SUMMARY

The goal of this research report has been to de-scribe the development of a set of 120 digitizedenvironmental sounds to use in sound namingtasks. The sounds vary in duration from 137 ms(cork popping) to 6083 ms (ocean), and norma-tive data are reported on how they are identified(naming accuracy, rated confidence, namingspeed), how their attributes (familiarity, com-plexity, pleasantness) are rated, and how theyare categorized (number and types of categories,number of sounds placed into each category,percentage of agreement on sound placement).These normative data should allow researchersmaximum flexibility in selecting subsets of

sounds for use in particular applications (e.g.,subsets of sounds that are easy or difficult toname; subsets of sounds rated low, medium, orhigh on familiarity). As in recent normativestudies of pictures (e.g., Cycowicz, Friedman, &Rothstein, 1997) and sounds (Fabiani et al.,1996), our stimuli are freely available to re-searchers and clinicians for professional use viadownload of compressed digital files over theWorld Wide Web; the URL is http://www.cofc.edu/~marcellm/confront.htm. Because many ofthe stimuli are edited versions of sound clipsthat were originally recorded and made commer-cially available for royalty-free use by soundeffects library vendors, use of the sounds is re-stricted to non-profit scientific and clinical in-


vestigations; users are prohibited from collect-ing and republishing the items as a separate testor as part of a sound effects collection. Once thesound files are obtained from the web site theycan be converted via generic sound-editing soft-ware to non-WAV formats and incorporated intoany of several commercially available multime-dia software programs for presentation as a‘‘slideshow’’ of sounds.

Limitations of the StudyIt should be remembered that the normativesamples in this investigation consisted of youngadult college students whose results may or maynot generalize to different populations. Re-searchers should be particularly sensitive to thepossibility of unanticipated but correct re-sponses of individuals from different agegroups. For instance, although none of theyoung adults described the helicopter sound as a‘‘whirlybird,’’ the harmonica sound as a‘‘mouth organ,’’ or the accordion sound as a‘‘concertina,’’ these are appropriate descriptionsthat we anticipated as potential synonyms andincluded in the scoring guidelines. It is unlikely,however, that we anticipated all such responses.It is also possible that there will be cohort differ-ences in the familiarity of some of the sounds.For instance, we suspect that old adults mightactually be more likely than young adults to rec-ognize and name the sounds of a manual type-writer and a 1960s era pinball machine – soundsthat were accurately identified by only 26% and36% of the young adults in the current study.We hope that researchers will use the sound setto establish normative data for populations inwhich they are interested, and we also hope thatresearchers will gather additional normative dataon different aspects of the sounds, such as theiracoustic similarity (cf. Ballas, 1993).

We believe that the responses of the subjectsin our investigation provide an excellent depic-tion of how ‘‘average’’ individuals describe thesounds (it was typically the case that the modalsound label derived from subjects’ responsesclosely matched the label given to the originalsound file by its creator). It should be remem-bered, however, that arbitrary decisions madeduring the development of our scoring guide-

lines clearly determined what was considered an‘‘accurate’’ naming response. First, the proce-dure of using the participants’ modal responseas the target sound label occasionally yieldedunexpected scoring guidelines. For instance,although it seemed reasonable to expect thatsome subjects listening to the car horn stimuluswould respond with a simple description of thesource of the sound (‘‘car’’), it was actually thecase that no subject responded with only theword ‘‘car,’’ and all subjects responded with theroot word ‘‘horn’’ used alone or in combinationwith ‘‘car.’’ Thus, a scoring guideline was es-tablished in which a response referring only tothe source of the sound was considered incorrect(recall that one goal was to determine the levelof specificity at which subjects would name thesound and to accept all synonyms at this level ascorrect). Second, it should also be rememberedthat participants’ naming responses were gath-ered using open-ended instructions to name thesounds (not directive instructions to describe thesource of the sound, the type of sound, or so on)and were scored using a correct-or-incorrectsystem. It is possible that what is considered anaccurate response could change, for instance,under more directive instructions (e.g., Ballas(1993) asked subjects to use both a noun and averb to name the sound) or a more lenient scor-ing system (e.g., Van Derveer (1979) used a 0-,1-, or 2-point scoring system). We encourageusers of the sound set to continue to refine ourproposed scoring guidelines for sound namingand to develop alternative scoring systems thatmight be more appropriate for specific applica-tions. For example, some may find it useful todevelop a scheme for distinguishing betweensemantic, perceptual, and phonological sound-naming errors (cf. Albert et al., 1988; Vitko-vitch, Humphreys, & Lloyd-Jones, 1993), or tocreate separate norms for name agreement andconceptual agreement (e.g., Fabiani et al.,1996).

Possible Uses of the Sound SetAlthough the intended use of these environmen-tal sounds is in auditory confrontation namingapplications such as the study of word-findingdifficulties with special populations, the sounds


can be flexibly adapted for a variety of applica-tions in clinical and experimental neuropsychol-ogy research on sound identification. Here are afew possibilities:

Several studies have reported progressiveimpairment of visual confrontation naming inAlzheimer’s patients (e.g., Bayles et al.,1990; Daum, Riesch, Sartori, & Birbaumer,1996; Jacobs et. al., 1995; Kirshner, Webb, &Kelly, 1984; Locasio, Growdon, & Corkin,1995; Pollmann, Haupt, & Kurz, 1995). Avariety of analyses (e.g., types of naming er-rors, consistency of naming performancewhen retested with repeated items) suggestthat many Alzheimer’s patients show an ac-tual degradation or loss of semantic informa-tion about a concept, not just an inability toretrieve a concept’s name (Frank et al., 1996;Henderson, Mack, Freed, Kempler, & Ander-son, 1990; Shuttleworth & Huber, 1989). Itwould seem important, however, to determineif the performance patterns evidenced by Alz-heimer’s patients are tied to the specific mode(visual) by which they attempt to access thepresumably degraded knowledge. Given re-cent research on the functional independenceof visual and auditory representations of cen-tral concepts (Thompson & Paivio, 1994) andthe theoretical possibility of separate and re-dundant modality-specific LTM stores (e.g.,Kieras, 1978), it would seem useful to deter-mine whether difficulty in naming an objector event depicted pictorially (e.g., a drawingof a typewriter) also occurs when the sameconcept is portrayed acoustically (as thesound of someone typing).Because of the traditional focus on confronta-tion naming of pictures, research on normaland impaired word-finding processes hasbeen primarily concerned with the retrieval ofobject labels (nouns) (McCarthy & Warring-ton, 1990). Although action labels (verbs) canbe depicted in single, static pictures, it islikely that temporally unfolding sounds candepict dynamic processes less ambiguouslythan pictures (cf. Jenkins, 1985). Thus, devel-opment of a set of sounds could broaden therange of to-be-named stimuli to include ac-tion labels in addition to object labels, and

perhaps facilitate the investigation of class-specific naming difficulties, such as theverbs-worse-than-nouns pattern shown bysome demented patients (White-Devine et al.,1996).Are naming difficulties in anomic subjectsthe same across different categories ofsounds? There are detailed cognitive neuro-psychological case studies of brain-damagedpatients who appear to have highly selectivepicture-naming impairments. For example,patients have been described with strikinglyselective anomias for fruits and vegetables(Farah & Wallace, 1992), animals (Temple,1986), living beings (Gainotti & Silveri,1996), foods and living things (Warrington &Shallice, 1984), and faces (Burton & Bruce,1992). Not only do such mental dissociationssuggest support for the existence of func-tional modular brain organization (Funnell,1987), but they also provide important con-straints for models of knowledge organiza-tion. No such category-specific naming im-pairments, however, have been identified onthe basis of sound naming. Perhaps this is dueto the rarity of such selective losses, but per-haps it is also due to the unavailability of asufficiently diverse set of test sounds withmultiple exemplars from each category to usein testing such patients.Investigators have reported evidence of mo-dality-specific impairments (e.g., ‘‘opticaphasia’’) in naming from vision, touch, andverbal description (e.g., Beauvois, 1982).Such naming disorders are consistent withempirical evidence for the functional inde-pendence of visual and auditory representa-tions of central concepts, whether manifestedby independent access routes to a commonsystem (e.g., Riddoch & Humphreys, 1987)or separate and redundant modality-specificLTM stores (e.g., Kieras, 1978). Develop-ment of a normed set of sounds with a widerange of difficulty is essential if investiga-tions of modality-specific naming impair-ments are to be extended to the naming ofnonverbal acoustic stimuli.Theoretical frameworks for understanding theorganization and functioning of semantic


long-term memory have been developedlargely on the basis of subjects’ responses tolinguistic and pictorial stimuli. A variety ofexperiments involving the naming of nonver-bal, everyday sounds could be useful in ex-ploring both the generality of effects discov-ered in studies with words and pictures andthe nature of knowledge organization in se-mantic long-term memory. For example, doesthe facilitation effect seen in within-modalityrepetition priming of words and pictures holdfor everyday sounds? Sounds ranked high onfamiliarity and presented in an initial session(e.g., a yawn rapidly masked with noise toprevent explicit identification) could be re-presented later in their original form; the em-pirical question is whether the re-presentedsounds are named more rapidly than a set ofnew sounds, matched on familiarity, from thesame category (e.g., a cough). Also, will sub-jects identify a target sound faster after hav-ing been primed earlier by a sound from thesame semantic category (‘‘dog barking’’ asprime sound, ‘‘wolf howling’’ as targetsound) or by a sound that is from a differentsemantic category but has similar perceptualcharacteristics (e.g., ‘‘person whistling’’ asprime, ‘‘birds singing’’ as target)? Similarstudies have recently been performed by Stu-art and Jones (1995, 1996) and Chiu andSchacter (1995); it is hoped that ready accessto a large set of normed environmentalsounds might encourage more such efforts.

REFERENCES

Albert, M.S., Heller, H.S., & Milberg, W. (1988).Changes in naming ability with age. Psychologyand Aging, 3, 173–178.

Ballas, J.A. (1993). Common factors in the identifica-tion of an assortment of brief everyday sounds.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-ception and Performance, 19, 250–267.

Ballas, J.A., & Howard, J.H. (1987). Interpreting thelanguage of environmental sounds. Environmentand Behavior, 19, 91–114.

Basso, A., Capitani, E., & Laiacona, M. (1988). Pro-gressive language impairment without dementia: Acase with isolated category specific semantic de-

fect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, andPsychiatry, 51, 1201–1207.

Battig, W.F., & Montague, W.E. (1969). Categorynorms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replica-tion and extension of the Connecticut categorynorms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Mono-graph, 80, 1–46.

Bayles, K.A., Caffrey, J.T ., Tomoeda, C.K., &Trosset, M.W. (1990). Confrontation naming andauditory comprehension in Alzheimer’s patients.Journal of Speech–Language Pathology & Audiol-ogy, 14, 15–20.

Beatty, W.W., Monson, N., & Goodkin, D.E. (1989).Access to semantic memory in Parkinson’s diseaseand multiple sclerosis. Journal of Geriatric Psychi-atry and Neurology, 2, 153–162.

Beauvois, M.F. (1982). Optic aphasia: A process ofinteraction between vision and language. Philo-sophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Lon-don, B298, 35–47.

Benson, D.F. (1985). Aphasia. In K.M. Heilman & E.Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (pp.17–47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Benton, A.L., & Hamsher, K. de S (1989). Multilin-gual Aphasia Examination (2nd ed.). Iowa City:AJA Associates.

Bjork, E.A. (1985). The perceived quality of naturalsounds. Acustica, 57, 185–188.

Burton, A.M., & Bruce, V. (1992). I recognize yourface but I can’t remember your name: A simpleexplanation? British Journal of Psychology, 83,45–60.

Chiu, C.-Y.P., & Schacter, D.L. (1995). Auditorypriming for nonverbal information: Implicit andexplicit memory for environmental sounds. Con-sciousness and Cognition, 4, 440–458.

Coren, S., & Hakstian, A.R. (1992). The developmentand cross-validation of a self-report inventory toassess pure-tone threshold hearing sensitivity.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35,921–928.

Coslett, H.B., Brashear, H.R., & Heilman, K.M.(1984). Pure word deafness after bilateral primaryauditory cortex infarcts. Neurology, 34, 347–352.

Cycowicz, Y.M., Friedman, D., & Rothstein, M.(1997). Picture naming by young children: Normsfor name agreement, familiarity, and visual com-plexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-ogy, 65, 171–237.

Daum, I., Riesch, G., Sartori, G., & Birbaumer, N.(1996). Semantic memory impairment in Alzhei-mer’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimen-tal Neuropsychology, 18, 648–665.

Eustache, F., Lechevalier, B., Viader, F., & Lambert,J. (1990). Identification and discrimination disor-ders in auditory perception: A report on two cases.Neuropsychologia, 28, 257–270.


Fabiani, M., Kazmerski, V.A., Cycowicz, Y.M., &Friedman, D. (1996). Naming norms for brief envi-ronmental sounds: Effects of age and dementia.Psychophysiology, 33, 462–475.

Farah, M.J., & Wallace, M.A. (1992). Semantically-bounded anomia: Implications for the neural im-plementation of naming. Neuropsychologia, 30,609–621.

Frank, E.M., McDade, H.L., & Scott, W.K. (1996).Naming in dementia secondary to Parkinson’s,Huntington’s, and Alzheimer’s diseases. Journal ofCommunication Disorders, 29, 183–197.

Funnell, E. (1987). Object concepts and object names:Some deductions from acquired disorders of wordprocessing. In G.W. Humphreys & M.J. Riddoch(Eds.), Visual object processing: A cognitive neu-ropsychological approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gainotti, G., & Silveri, M.C. (1996). Cognitive andanatomical locus of lesion in a patient with a cate-gory-specific semantic impairment for living be-ings. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 357–389.

Gaver, W.W. (1993). What in the world do we hear?An ecological approach to auditory event percep-tion. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1–29.

Goodglass, H. (1980). Disorders of naming followingbrain injury. American Scientist, 68, 647–655.

Goodglass, H. (1993). Understanding aphasia. SanDiego: Academic Press.

Hawkins, K.A., Sledge, W.H., Orleans, J.F., Quinlan,D.M., Rakfeldt, J., & Hoffman, R.E. (1993). Nor-mative implications of the relationship betweenreading vocabulary and Boston Naming Test per-formance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,8, 525–537.

Henderson, V.W., Mack, W., Freed, D.M., Kempler,D., & Andersen, E.S. (1990). Naming consistencyin Alzheimer disease. Brain and Language, 39,530–538.

Jacobs, D.M., Sano, M., Dooneief, G., Marder, K., etal. (1995). Neuropsychological detection and char-acterization of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease.Neurology, 45, 957–962.

Jenkins, J.J. (1985). Acoustic information for objects,places, and events. In W.H. Warren, Jr. & R.E.Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change. Proceedingsof the First International Conference on EventPerception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983).Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Kay, J., & Franklin, S. (1995). Cognitive neuropsy-chology and assessment. In R.L. Mapou & J.Spector (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychological as-sessment: A cognitive approach. New York: Ple-num.

Kieras, D. (1978). Beyond pictures and words: Alter-native information processing models for imageryeffects in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin,85, 532–554.

Kirshner, H.S., Webb, W.G., & Kelly, M.P. (1984).The naming disorder of dementia. Neuropsychol-ogia, 22, 23–30.

Lass, N.J., Eastham, S.K., Parrish, W.C., Scherbick,K.A., & Ralph, D.M. (1982). Listeners’ identifica-tion of environmental sounds. Perceptual and Mo-tor Skills, 55, 75–78.

Locasio, J.J., Growdon, J.H., & Corkin, S. (1995).Cognitive test performance in detecting, staging,and tracking Alzheimer’s disease. Archives of Neu-rology, 52, 1087–1099.

Luce, R.D. (1993). Sound and hearing: A conceptualintroduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marcell, M.M., Busby, E.A., Mansker, J.K., &Whelan, M.L. (1998). Confrontation naming offamiliar sounds and pictures by individuals withDown syndrome. American Journal on Mental Re-tardation, 102, 485–499.

Margolin, D.I., Pate, D.S., Friedrich, F.J., & Elia, E.(1990). Dysnomia in dementia and in stroke pa-tients: Different underlying cognitive deficits.Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-chology, 12, 597–612.

McAdams, S. (1993). Recognition of sound sourcesand events. In S. McAdams & E. Bigand (Eds.),Thinking in sound: The cognitive psychology ofhuman audition (pp. 146–198). Oxford: Clarendon.

McAdams, S., & Bigand, E. (1993). Introduction toauditory cognition. In S. McAdams & E. Bigand(Eds.), Thinking in sound: The cognitive psychol-ogy of human audition (pp. 146–198). Oxford:Clarendon.

McCarthy, R.A., & Warrington, E.K. (1990). Cogni-tive neuropsychology: A clinical introduction. NewYork: Academic Press.

Miceli, G., Giustolisi, L., & Caramazza, A. (1991).The interaction of lexical and non-lexical process-ing mechanisms: Evidence from anomia. Cortex,27, 57–80.

Mitchell, D.B. (1989). How many memory systems?Evidence from aging. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,15, 31–49.

Montanes, P., Goldblum, M.C., & Boller, F. (1995).The naming impairment of living and nonlivingitems in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the Inter-national Neuropsychological Society, 1, 39–48.

Nagafuchi, M., Iinuma, K., Yamamoto, K., & Kita-hara, T. (1993). Diazepam therapy of verbal audi-tory agnosia. Brain and Language, 45, 180–188.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dualcoding approach. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Pollman, S., Haupt, M., & Kurz, A. (1995). Changesof the relative severity of naming, fluency and re-call impairment in the course of dementia of theAlzheimer type. Dementia , 6, 252–257.

Port, R.F., Cummins, F., & McAuley, J.D. (1995).Naive time, temporal patterns, and human audition.


In R.F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as mo-tion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Porteous, J.D., & Mastin, J.F. (1985). Soundscape.Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 2,169–186.

Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Klein, R.M. (1976). Vi-sual dominance: An information-processing ac-count of its origins and significance. PsychologicalReview, 83, 157–171.

Riddoch, M.J., & Humphreys, G.W. (1987). Picturenaming. In G.W. Humphreys & M.J. Riddoch(Eds.), Visual object processing: A cognitive neu-ropsychological approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of seman-tic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: General, 104, 192–233.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E.Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Catego-rization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schneider, W. (1995). MEL Professional 2.0. Pitts-burgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

Schnider, A., Benson, D.F., Alexander, D.N., &Schnider-Klaus, A. (1994). Non-verbal environ-mental sound recognition after unilateral hemi-spheric stroke. Brain, 117, 281–287.

Shallice, T. (1988). Specialisation within the semanticsystem. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 133–142.

Shuttleworth, E.C., & Huber, S.J. (1989). A longitudi-nal study of the naming disorder of dementia of theAlzheimer type. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol-ogy, and Behavioral Neurology, 1, 267–282.

Snodgrass, J.G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A stan-dardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for nameagreement, image agreement, familiarity, and vi-sual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.

Snodgrass, J.G., & Yuditsky, T. (1996). Naming timesfor the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behav-ior Research Methods, Instruments, and Comput-ers, 28, 516–536.

Spreen, O., & Benton, A.L. (1963). A sound recogni-tion test for clinical use. (Mimeo). Iowa City: Uni-versity of Iowa.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991). A compendium ofneuropsychological tests: Administration, norms,and commentary. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Stein, L.K., & Curry, F.K.W. (1968). Childhood audi-tory agnosia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Dis-orders, 33, 361–370.

Stimley, M.A., & Noll, J.D. (1991). The effects ofsemantic and phonemic prestimulation cues on pic-ture naming in aphasia. Brain and Language, 41,496–509.

Stuart, G.P., & Jones, D.M. (1995). Priming the iden-tification of environmental sounds. The QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 48A,741–761.

Stuart, G.P., & Jones, D.M. (1996). From auditoryimage to auditory percept: Facilitation throughcommon processes? Memory & Cognition, 24,296–304.

Temple, C.M. (1986). Anomia for animals in a child.Brain, 109, 1225–1242.

Thompson, V.A., & Paivio, A. (1994). Memory forpictures and sounds: Independence of auditory andvisual codes. Canadian Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 48, 380–396.

Van Derveer, N.J. (1979). Ecological acoustics: Hu-man perception of environmental sounds (Univer-sity Microfilms International No. 80-04002). Dis-sertation Abstracts International.

van Gorp, W.G., Satz, P., Kiersch, M.E., & Henry, R.(1986). Normative data on the Boston Naming Testfor a group of normal older adults. Journal of Clin-ical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8,702–705.

Van Lancker, D., Cornelius, C., Kreiman, J., Tonick,I., Tanguay, P., & Schulman, M.L. (1988). Recog-nition of environmental sounds in autistic children.Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 27, 423–427.

Varney, N.R. (1980). Sound recognition in relation toaural language comprehension in aphasic patients.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychia-try, 43, 71–75.

Varney, N.R., & Damasio, H. (1986). CT scan corre-lates of sound recognition defect in aphasia. Cor-tex, 22, 483–486.

Vitkovitch, M., Humphreys, G.W., & Lloyd-Jones,T.J. (1993). On naming a giraffe a zebra: Picturenaming errors across different object categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 19, 243–259.

Vos, J. (1992). Annoyance caused by simultaneousimpulse, road-traffic, and aircraft sounds: A quan-titative model. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 91, 3330–3345.

Wallesch, C.W., & Fehrenbach, R.A. (1988). On theneurolinguistic nature of language abnormalities inHuntington’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neu-rosurgery, and Psychiatry, 51, 367–373.

Warrington, E., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category spe-cific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854.

White-Devine, T., Grossman, M., Robinson, K.M.,Onishi, K., et al. (1996). Verb confrontation nam-ing and word-picture matching in Alzheimer’s dis-ease. Neuropsychology, 10, 495–503.

Wightman, F.L., & Jenison, R. (1995). Auditory spa-tial layout. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Per-ception of space and motion. San Diego: AcademicPress.

Wingfield, A., Goodglass, H., & Smith, K.L. (1990).Effects of word-onset cuing on picture naming inaphasia: A reconsideration. Brain and Language,39, 373–390.

confrontation naming of environmental soundspardo/courses/casa/papers/marcel_2000.pdf · boston...

Documents