Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Experiments testing sound for augmented reality can involve real and virtual sound sources. Paradigms are either based on rating various acoustic attributes or testing whether a virtual sound source is believed to be real (i.e., evokes an auditory illusion). This study compares four experimental designs indicating such illusions. The first is an ABX task suitable for evaluation under the authenticity paradigm. The second is a Yes/No task, as proposed to evaluate plausibility. The third is a three-alternative-forced-choice (3AFC) task using different source signals for real and virtual, proposed to evaluate transfer-plausibility. Finally, a 2AFC task was tested. The renderings compared in the tests encompassed mismatches between real and virtual room acoustics. Results confirm that authenticity is hard to achieve under nonideal conditions, and ceiling effects occur because differences are always detected. Thus, the other paradigms are better suited for evaluating practical augmented reality audio systems. Detection analysis further shows that the 3AFC transfer-plausibility test is more sensitive than the 2AFC task. Moreover, participants are more sensitive to differences between real and virtual sources in the Yes/No task than theory predicts. This contribution aims to aid in selecting experimental paradigms in future experiments regarding perceptual and technical requirements for sound in augmented reality.
Meyer‐Kahlen et al. (Fri,) studied this question.