Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

The Influence of Interior Noise on Just-Noticeable Speed Differences in Conventional and Electric Vehicles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that at highway speed, the combustion-engine cabin sound lets drivers detect speed changes almost twice as finely as electric-vehicle sound (mean JNDs 1.93 vs 3.48 km/h), and that the advantage comes from an audible…

desk verdict The paper's promising JND design is undercut by an internal staircase inconsistency that puts the ICEV advantage at 100 km/h in doubt before the loudness confound even enters. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19023 v1 pith:2TJLEOO4 submitted 2026-07-21 physics.class-ph

Zhenxian Li (INSA Lyon , LVA) , Etienne Parizet (LVA) , Claudio Colangeli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-ph
keywords speedperceptionjust-noticeabledifferenceelectricvehicleinteriornoiseengine-ordertonalitytone-to-noiseratiodrivingsimulatorpsychoacousticsadaptivestaircase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a car's interior sound is not just a comfort feature but part of the sensory machinery drivers use to feel their speed. Measuring just-noticeable speed differences in a driving simulator, it finds that at 100 km/h drivers detect speed changes down to about 1.9 km/h with combustion-engine sound, about 3.5 km/h with electric-vehicle sound, and about 5.2 km/h in silence. The authors argue that the combustion-engine advantage comes from a discrete engine-order tone whose frequency rises with speed, providing a trackable auditory cue, while the electric-vehicle interior sound is too broadband and steady to support that fine discrimination. If true, this matters for EV design: simply making electric cars louder may not restore speed sensitivity; adding a speed-linked tonal component might.

What carries the argument

The central object is the engine-order tonal component: a discrete spectral peak in the interior sound whose frequency is an integer multiple of engine rotational frequency. The paper identifies a second-order engine harmonic near 140 Hz at 100 km/h with a tone-to-noise ratio of about 6 dB, and uses classical frequency-discrimination limits to show that the $0.37\,\text{Hz}$ per (km/h) shift of this peak is just enough to support the measured $1.93$ km/h JND. This tone is what carries the argument: it is the only analyzed acoustic feature that clearly differs between ICEV and EV at highway speed and that changes predictably with speed.

What would settle it

Re-run the 100 km/h two-alternative forced-choice task with ICEV and EV stimuli matched in overall A-weighted level, and separately with the approximately 140 Hz engine-order tone filtered out of the ICEV sound while preserving loudness; the tonality explanation fails if the JND gap between powertrain conditions disappears or if removing the tone leaves the gap unchanged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that at a 100 km/h reference speed, the just-noticeable speed difference averaged 1.93 km/h with ICEV interior sound, 3.48 km/h with EV interior sound, and 5.15 km/h in silence, with all pairwise differences significant; at 40 km/h, ICEV and EV did not differ (1.24 vs 1.19 km/h) while silence was worse (2.72 km/h). The paper argues that the highway-speed advantage of the ICEV is not explained by speed-dependent changes in loudness or sharpness, because those psychoacoustic metrics stay near the detectability band for both vehicle types. Instead, tone-to-noise-ratio analysis reveals a prominent engine-order tone near 140 Hz at 100 km/h, with a level around 6 dB above the noise, whose frequency shifts by roughly 0.37 Hz per (km/h). The frequency shift corresponding to the measured ICEV JND is about 0.49%, squarely within typical frequency-discrimination limits near 150 Hz. The conclusion is that trackable spectral cues, not overall loudness, explain why combustion-engine sound supports finer speed discrimination on the highway.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ICEV's speed-perception advantage comes from the pitch-carrying engine tone rather than from the fact that the ICEV sound was about 7 dB(A) louder at 100 km/h; the experiment did not equalise overall loudness across the sound conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At highway speed, the soundscape determines how finely a driver can sense speed changes: combustion-engine sound roughly halves the JND relative to silence and nearly halves it relative to EV sound.
  • At 40 km/h, any audible feedback helps, but powertrain type does not matter, suggesting that tonal cues become decisive only when speed and engine order combine to produce a salient tone.
  • Simply amplifying EV interior noise will not restore highway speed sensitivity, because the EV's limitation is not overall level but the lack of a trackable tonal cue.
  • Adding a speed-contingent tonal component to EV interior sound may support speed perception while preserving comfort, which the paper frames as the actionable design implication.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete design target follows from the paper's numbers: near 100 km/h, a tonal cue with a frequency slope of about 0.37 Hz per (km/h) around 140 Hz should be audible, though the authors do not derive this as an explicit specification.
  • The frequency-mapping argument predicts that speed changes should be even more detectable during acceleration, where the tone sweeps continuously rather than in steps; this can be tested with time-varying speed profiles, which the present constant-speed design does not cover.
  • The 40 km/h null result suggests tonality is not the only useful cue; if confirmed, EV sound design could focus tonal additions on highway speeds and rely on broadband variation at city speeds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a within-subject psychophysical experiment measuring just-noticeable differences (JNDs) in speed under three interior-sound conditions (ICEV, EV, silence) at reference speeds of 40 and 100 km/h. Thirty participants completed a 2AFC task with visual driving clips accompanied by auralized vehicle interior noises. The authors report that at 100 km/h, the ICEV sound produced a significantly lower speed JND (1.93 km/h) than the EV sound (3.48 km/h) and silence (5.15 km/h), while at 40 km/h the ICEV and EV conditions did not differ. They interpret the highway-speed difference as evidence that audible engine-order tonal components whose frequencies shift with speed provide a trackable spectral cue, and they recommend that EV sound design introduce speed-contingent tonal components rather than simply increasing loudness. The paper includes open-source code and archived stimuli.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to an underexplored question: whether interior sound affects not just speed estimation bias but the perceptual sensitivity to speed changes. The within-subject design, use of realistic auralized stimuli, and public availability of code and data are strengths, and the practical design implication for EV sound engineering is potentially valuable. However, the central claim that the ICEV advantage at 100 km/h is specifically due to engine-order tonality is currently supported only by post-hoc psychoacoustic analysis; the experimental design does not independently manipulate tonality, and two confounds (absolute sound level and staircase quantization) leave the quantitative result open to alternative explanations. The observed effect may be real, but the manuscript's interpretation and the precision of the headline JND values require substantiation before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Procedure and Data Analysis (p.3), Table 2] The reported ICEV JND of 1.93 km/h at 100 km/h is at the resolution limit of the adaptive staircase, which had a minimum adjustment step of 2 km/h. If a zero offset was never presented, then every reversal level is at least 2 km/h and the mean of reversal levels cannot be below 2, making 1.93 inconsistent with the stated procedure. If a zero offset was allowed, then the threshold estimate lies within one step of the smallest nonzero stimulus, meaning the staircase has not resolved the threshold below the 2 km/h bin; the true ICEV JND could be anywhere from near 0 to 2 km/h. The manuscript does not report the distribution of reversal levels or how many staircases reached the floor, so the quantitative contrast between ICEV (1.93) and EV (3.48) may partly reflect a floor effect. The authors should report the raw reversal distributions and, ideally, use a finer step near threshold to verify that the ICEV advantage is not an artifact of censoring at the 2 km/h step.
  2. [Stimuli and Conditions (p.2), Table 1] At 100 km/h, the ICEV audio stimulus was 63.7/63.6 dB(A) while the EV stimulus was 56.2/55.8 dB(A), a difference of about 7.5 dB(A). Overall loudness was not equalized across conditions. The Discussion addresses loudness only through the ratio of psychoacoustic metrics relative to each condition's own reference speed, which cancels absolute level differences. As a result, the observed JND difference between ICEV and EV could be driven by the substantially higher absolute sound level of the ICEV stimulus rather than by the presence of engine-order tones. Because the design recommendation (add speed-varying tonal components rather than increase loudness) depends on this attribution, the authors need to either match the overall level across conditions, include a level-matched control condition (e.g., EV sound with an added synthetic speed-varying tone, or ICEV sound with the tonal component removed), or otherwise provide evidence that absolute level does not account for the JND difference.
  3. [Discussion (pp.5-6), tonality analysis and frequency-shift argument] The central interpretation, that the ICEV advantage at highway speed is 'directly explained' by the tone-to-noise ratio, is an observational inference rather than a result of an experimental manipulation: the ICEV and EV stimuli differ in many acoustic attributes simultaneously, including overall level, spectral shape, roughness, and tonality. The frequency-shift consistency check also contains an apparent error: the text lists the second-order frequencies as 146.1 Hz and 145.0 Hz for engine speeds at 100 and 103 km/h, respectively, but the given RPM values (4350 and 4383) imply the opposite ordering (145.0 Hz at 100 km/h, 146.1 Hz at 103 km/h). In addition, the tonality analysis in Figure 6 identifies a tone at 'approximately 140 Hz,' which does not match the 145-146 Hz value used in the calculation. The sign and magnitude of the frequency-slope argument should be corrected and presented consistently. More importantly, the claim that tonality is the primary cue would be considerably strengthened by an additional condition that manipulates tonality independently of other features (e.g., adding a synthetic speed-varying tone to the EV sound), which the current design lacks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results (p.4), Table numbering] The text 'Descriptive statistics are summarised in Table 1' appears just before Table 2 is presented; the table containing the JND means is labeled Table 1 in the text but Table 2 in the table itself. Please renumber consistently.
  2. [Results (p.4), ANOVA degrees of freedom] The reported degrees of freedom F(2,28) and F(2,50) do not directly correspond to the stated sample sizes (30 participants, with 20 remaining after exclusions at 40 km/h). If these are Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected degrees of freedom, please state the uncorrected values and the epsilon estimates so the reader can verify the analysis.
  3. [Data Analysis (p.3), participant exclusion at 40 km/h] The paper excludes all 40 km/h runs from the 10 participants who had one non-convergent staircase, leaving n=20, but the sample size used in each ANOVA and in the descriptive statistics is not explicitly stated. Please clarify the effective sample size per condition and whether the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was run only on participants with complete data.
  4. [Procedure (p.3), staircase rule terminology] The procedure describes a '2-down/1-up' rule combined with PEST step-size adjustments, but PEST traditionally uses a different decision rule (e.g., a likelihood-ratio based stopping rule). The combination should be described more precisely, including how the 2-down/1-up convergence point (approximately 70.7% correct) relates to the definition of JND used here, since readers may expect a 75% threshold.
  5. [Discussion (pp.5-6), frequency shift sign] The computed engine-order frequencies at 100 and 103 km/h appear to be swapped relative to the stated RPM values; this should be corrected to avoid confusing readers about whether the frequency increases or decreases with speed.
  6. [Throughout, minor typographical issues] There are a few typos, including 'at least 1 years of driving experience' (should be '1 year') and 'with respect to the event to the speed difference' (likely 'with respect to the speed difference'). Please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported JNDs are measured data and the tonality explanation is a post-hoc consistency check against external psychoacoustic thresholds.

full rationale

This paper reports an experimental psychophysical measurement rather than a derivation from first principles. The central claim—that ICEV interior sound yields a lower speed JND than EV sound at 100 km/h—rests on adaptive staircase data collected from 30 participants. No model parameter was fitted to the JND outcomes and then renamed as a prediction: the psychoacoustic metrics (loudness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength, tone-to-noise ratio) are computed directly from the stimuli, not from the behavioral thresholds. The frequency-shift argument in the Discussion converts the measured ICEV JND into an equivalent frequency change and compares it with classical frequency-discrimination Weber fractions (0.5–1.5% near 150 Hz); this is an external benchmark, not a circular reuse of the same data. The self-citations [24–26] concern the Simcenter NVH synthesis tooling used to construct realistic stimuli; they support stimulus generation and do not supply the perceptual conclusion. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The tonality explanation is an interpretation of which acoustic feature plausibly drives the measured difference, and although loudness was not equalized across conditions, that is a confound or correctness concern, not circularity. Potential internal inconsistencies in the staircase arithmetic (e.g., a reported mean JND below the stated minimum step) are measurement/procedural issues outside the scope of circularity analysis. There is no step in which a claimed result reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the JND values are measured. The main assumptions are psychophysical staircase validity, representativeness of synthesized stimuli, and transfer of classical frequency-discrimination data. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The adaptive staircase's 2-down/1-up rule tracks the 70.7% correct threshold, and the arithmetic mean of reversals estimates the JND.
    Standard psychophysical assumption invoked in Procedure and Data Analysis sections; not explicitly justified for speed perception.
  • domain assumption The Simcenter NVH simulator auralizations are representative of real ICEV and EV interior noise.
    Stimuli section says the framework combines measured vehicle NVH data with real-time auralization, but no validation or listening test is reported.
  • domain assumption Classical frequency-discrimination thresholds (0.5 to 1.5 percent near 150 Hz) transfer to this complex audio-visual driving context.
    Used in the Discussion to argue that the roughly 0.49 percent spectral shift at the ICEV JND is audible; no control condition isolates pitch tracking.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Influence of Interior Noise on Just-Noticeable Speed Differences in Conventional and Electric Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TJLEOO4

@misc{pith2026260719023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Influence of Interior Noise on Just-Noticeable Speed Differences in Conventional and Electric Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TJLEOO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19023}
}
read the original abstract

Electric vehicles (EVs) and internal-combustion-engine vehicles (ICEVs) differ fundamentally in their in-cabin acoustics, notably the attenuation or absence of engine-order content. Prior work reports associations between reduced engine sound, speed underestimation, and poorer speed maintenance; however, research on how EVs' new sound affects speed perception and control is scarce, and most newer studies focus on comfort and subjective pleasantness rather than speed perception. Addressing this gap, the present study uses a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm to directly measure just-noticeable differences (JNDs) in speed under ICEV, EV, and silent conditions. Thirty participants performed a 2AFC task in which, on each trial, they viewed two first-person highway clips (reference vs. comparison) and indicated which appeared faster. Results from ANOVA and post-hoc tests indicate that at the 40 km/h reference speed participants showed no clear differences across sound conditions, whereas at 100 km/h there were marked differences in JND: mean values were 1.93 km/h (ICEV), 3.48 km/h (EV), and 5.15 km/h (silence). A psychoacoustic parameter analysis suggests that this effect is not explained by speed-dependent changes in loudness or sharpness; we interpret that RPM-related, clearly audible frequency shifts in ICEV provide the primary contributory cue. For EV NVH or artificial sound design, enhancing speed-contingent, trackable spectral cues while respecting comfort may help maintain drivers' ability to discriminate speed differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scene of the driving simulator setup used in the experiment. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. displays the updated distribution of just-noticeable-difference (JND) values, with statistical outliers removed, for the three auditory conditions (ICEV, EV, Silence) at the two reference speeds (40 km/h and 100 km/h). Descriptive statistics are summarised in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Page 1 of 8 18/06/2026 2026-06-18 The Influence of Interior Noise on Just-Noticeable Speed Differences in Conventional and Electric Vehicles Zhenxian LI1, Etienne Parizet1, Claudio COLANGELI2

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    ICEV” condition, an “EV

    Siemens Industry Software, Belgium Abstract Electric vehicles (EVs) and internal-combustion-engine vehicles (ICEVs) differ fundamentally in their in-cabin acoustics, notably the attenuation or absence of engine-order content. Prior work reports associations between reduced engine sound, speed underestimation, and poorer speed maintenance; however, researc...

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    This figure illustrates the participant's view of the simulation environment, including the large curved display and the driving scene

    Scene of the driving simulator setup used in the experiment. This figure illustrates the participant's view of the simulation environment, including the large curved display and the driving scene. Stimuli and Conditions The visual stimulus was a first-person perspective video of a highway driving scene generated using Siemens Prescan software. It depicted...

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    ICEV” sound condition first, while others started with “EV

    Silence: no sound was provided. For each stimulus, the visual and auditory cues were both speed dependent and corresponded to the visual and acoustic information produced by the tested vehicle type during constant-speed driving at the given speed. Procedure Each participant was tested in all auditory conditions and at both base speeds (40 km/h and 100 km/...

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Average of JND after outlier removal. (km/h) Condition 40 km/h 100 km/h ICEV 1.24 1.93 EV 1.19 3.48 Silence 2.72 5.15 A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA conducted separately at each speed level revealed a reliable main effect of sound condition at 40 km/h, 𝐹(2,28) = 8.96, Greenhouse–Geisser–corrected 𝑝 = 0.006, 𝜂²𝐺 = 0.31, and likewise at 100 km/h, 𝐹(2,50)...

    work page

  6. [6]

    EV) Although any auditory cue is preferable to none for speed perception, differences in in-cabin sounds associated with different powertrain types do affect speed perception JNDs

    Ratios of psychoacoustic metrics relative to a reference speed (ICEV vs. EV) Although any auditory cue is preferable to none for speed perception, differences in in-cabin sounds associated with different powertrain types do affect speed perception JNDs. At 40 km/h, JNDs did not differ between ICEV and EV, which is consistent with the 40 km/h normalized pl...

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Ch1 and Ch2 denote left- and right-ear recordings, respectively

    Comparison of Tone to Noise Ratio for EV and ICEV at 40 km/h and 100 km/h. Ch1 and Ch2 denote left- and right-ear recordings, respectively. Limitations and Future Work The participant sample was relatively homogeneous in age, consisting primarily of engineering students aged between 20 and 25 years. In addition, participants were generally more familiar w...

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Auditory feedback influences perceived driving speeds,

    Horswill, M.S. and Plooy, A.M., “Auditory feedback influences perceived driving speeds,” Perception 37(7):1037–1043, 2008, doi:10.1068/p5736

    work page doi:10.1068/p5736 2008

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Speed Estimation from a Moving Automobile,

    EVANS, L., “Speed Estimation from a Moving Automobile,” Ergonomics 13(2):219–230, 1970, doi:10.1080/00140137008931135

    1970 doi

  2. [10]

    A Driving Simulator Study to Examine the Role of Vehicle Acoustics on Drivers’ Speed Perception,

    Merat, N. and Jamson, H., “A Driving Simulator Study to Examine the Role of Vehicle Acoustics on Drivers’ Speed Perception,” Proceedings of the 6th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design : driving assessment 2011, Un...

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Influence of speed-related auditory feedback on braking in a 3D-driving simulator,

    Bringoux, L., Monnoyer, J., Besson, P., Bourdin, C., Denjean, S., Dousset, E., Goulon, C., Kronland-Martinet, R., Mallet, P., Marqueste, T., Martha, C., Roussarie, V., Sciabica, J.-F., and Stratulat, A., “Influence of speed-related auditory feedback on braking in a 3D-driving ...

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision,

    Lee, D.N., “A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision,” Perception 5(4):437–459, 1976, doi:10.1068/p050437

    1976 doi

  5. [13]

    A perspective review on the role of engine sound in speed perception and control: state of the art and methodological suggestions,

    Prpic, V., Gherri, E., and Lugli, L., “A perspective review on the role of engine sound in speed perception and control: state of the art and methodological suggestions,” Front. Psychol. 15:1391271, 2024, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1391271

    2024

  6. [14]

    Creating the Illusion of Sportiness: Evaluating Modified Throttle Mapping and Artificial Engine Sound for Electric Vehicles,

    Melman, T., Visser, P., Mouton, X., and De Winter, J., “Creating the Illusion of Sportiness: Evaluating Modified Throttle Mapping and Artificial Engine Sound for Electric Vehicles,” J. Adv. Transp. 2021:1–15, 2021, doi:10.1155/2021/4396401

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Electric Motor Noise in a Lightweight Steel Vehicle,

    Florentin, J., Durieux, F., Kuriyama, Y., and Yamamoto, T., “Electric Motor Noise in a Lightweight Steel Vehicle,” 2011-01–1724, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-1724

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Sound Quality of the Acoustic Noise Radiated by PWM-Fed Electric Powertrain,

    Fang, Y. and Zhang, T., “Sound Quality of the Acoustic Noise Radiated by PWM-Fed Electric Powertrain,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 65(6):4534–4541, 2018, doi:10.1109/TIE.2017.2767558

    2018

  9. [17]

    Howl, whirr, and whistle: The perception of electric powertrain noise and its importance for perceived quality in electrified vehicles,

    Münder, M. and Carbon, C.-C., “Howl, whirr, and whistle: The perception of electric powertrain noise and its importance for perceived quality in electrified vehicles,” Appl. Acoust. 185:108412, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108412

    2022

  10. [18]

    Experimental Determination of the Masking Threshold for Tonal Powertrain Noise in Electric Vehicles,

    Abbink, V., Landes, D., and Altinsoy, M.E., “Experimental Determination of the Masking Threshold for Tonal Powertrain Noise in Electric Vehicles,” Acoustics 5(4):882–897, 2023, doi:10.3390/acoustics5040051

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Influence parameters on the perceived magnitude of tonal content of electric vehicle interior sounds,

    Doleschal, F., Rottengruber, H., and Verhey, J.L., “Influence parameters on the perceived magnitude of tonal content of electric vehicle interior sounds,” Appl. Acoust. 181:108155, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108155

    2021

  12. [20]

    Effect of Driving Sound of Electric Vehicle on Product Attractiveness,

    Toshikazu Kato and Ryuji Yokote, “Effect of Driving Sound of Electric Vehicle on Product Attractiveness,” 3(3):416–424, 2023, doi:10.1007/s44230-023-00030-6

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Spatial Sound Design in a Car Cockpit: Challenges and Perspectives,

    Dupre, T., Denjean, S., Aramaki, M., and Kronland-Martinet, R., “Spatial Sound Design in a Car Cockpit: Challenges and Perspectives,” 2021 Immersive and 3D Audio: from Architecture to Automotive (I3DA), IEEE, Bologna, Italy, ISBN 978-1-6654-0998-8: 1–5, 2021, doi:10.1109/I3DA4...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Quantification and characterization of the role of subjective preferences on vehicle acceleration sound quality,

    Liao, X. and Zheng, S., “Quantification and characterization of the role of subjective preferences on vehicle acceleration sound quality,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 138:106549, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.106549

    2020

  15. [23]

    Visual control during straight road driving,

    Riemersma, J.B.J., “Visual control during straight road driving,” Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 48(1):215–225, 1981, doi:10.1016/0001-6918(81)90063-9

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    Velocity perception in a moving observer,

    Hogendoorn, H., Alais, D., MacDougall, H., and Verstraten, F.A.J., “Velocity perception in a moving observer,” Vision Res. 138:12–17, 2017, doi:10.1016/j.visres.2017.06.001

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Modelling visual-vestibular integration and behavioural adaptation in the driving simulator,

    Markkula, G., Romano, R., Waldram, R., Giles, O., Mole, C., and Wilkie, R., “Modelling visual-vestibular integration and behavioural adaptation in the driving simulator,” Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 66:310–323, 2019, doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.018

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Can You Feel The Difference? The Just Noticeable Difference of Longitudinal Acceleration,

    Müller, T., Hajek, H., Radić-Weißenfeld, L., and Bengler, K., “Can You Feel The Difference? The Just Noticeable Difference of Longitudinal Acceleration,” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 57(1):1219–1223, 2013, doi:10.1177/1541931213571271

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Influence of the size of the field of view on motion perception,

    Pretto, P., Ogier, M., Bülthoff, H.H., and Bresciani, J.-P., “Influence of the size of the field of view on motion perception,” Comput. Graph. 33(2):139–146, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.cag.2009.01.003

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions,

    Taylor, M.M. and Creelman, C.D., “PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41(4A):782–787, 1967, doi:10.1121/1.1910407

    1967 doi

  21. [2012]

    Page 8 of 8 18/06/2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.