PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Electric and Autonomous Vehicle: from Sound Quality to Innovative
Sound Design
Nicolas MISDARIIS1; Andrea CERA1; William RODRIGUEZ2
1
2

STMS Ircam-CNRS-SU, France

UX Design Dept – Groupe Renault, France

ABSTRACTThis study follows long-term lines of research and realizations accomplished within the frame of electricvehicle sound design. It currently deals with the most up-to-date issue addressing the near future mobility:
Autonomous Drive (AD). It has been implemented in a 2-year collaboration with a french car manufacturer
that deployed a high-tech demo-car where the sonic dimension was explored in a spatial and a multisensory
approach. Specific hardware devices (multi-channel diffusion system) and software protocols(spatialization and vehicle data transmission) made possible the study and realization of numerous andaccurate internal/external warning sounds and auditory Human-Machine Interfaces. The autonomous
driving condition was especially considered as it corresponds to an unprecedented user experience in termsof human-centered process, where sounds could play a crucial role for informing and, if necessary,reassuring the driver and passengers. This paper presents a thorough analysis of the project: initialrequirements and data, multi-disciplinary framework, technical details, sound concepts and realization. It
also opens onto reflexive and prospective considerations about the global notion of sound quality that
especially look at possible forms of low-intrusiveness in sound design, and their related properties.
Keywords: Sound design, Human-Machine Interface, Autonomous vehicle

1. INTRODUCTION
The project upon which the present paper is based, comes within the broader frame of sounddesign for automotive industry. In fact, the vehicle cockpit is a place – and the driving situation is a
moment – where a large number of intentional informations (see Langeveld et al. (1) for the conceptof “intentional” sound) is given to the driver – and incidentally, to the passengers – at different levelsof significance (2): from very urgent (warning of a sudden dysfunction, for instance the temperature
increase in the cooling circuit), to just informative (notification of a standard action, for instance theblinker triggering). These functional informations are mainly transmitted by two sensory modalities:
vision (lights and icons on the dashboard) and hearing (sounds playing the role of auditory displays,
or what can be alternatively called sonic Human-Machine Interfaces – HMI); and, this is without
considering the vibro-tactile solutions that strongly tends to emerge …. (3,4). This being, the recent
developments of new vehicles types (smart-connected and/or electric-silent vehicles) and new
driving configurations (in particular, the different levels of autonomous drive) lead to reinforce thedialogue between Human (driver and passengers) and Machine (car), and therefore, the need forrelevant, efficient, coherent and, a fortiori, pleasant human-machine interfaces.
Within that frame, we recently contributed to an important and long-term industrial project(2016-2017) led by the car manufacturer Renault, that aimed at developing a demo-car3 called
Symbioz. This contribution involved our research team in sound perception and sound design(Ircam-STMS / SPD) and a collaboration with a composer/sound designer (Andrea Cera) with whom
the team used to work for many years on that global topic (5). The unique specimen of Symbioz is an1

nicolas.misdariis@ircam.fr ; andreawax@yahoo.it
william.rodriguez@renault.com
3
in the automotive world, a demo-car – literally called Integrated Technology Demonstrator - ITD – is a
type of product placed between a concept-car (fully experimental, even sometimes unable to move byitself) and a car produced in mass (resulting from an industrialized process and commercialized).
27161

electric and autonomous car experimenting and integrating most of the up-to-date technologies
available in the automotive industry, and especially the level 4 of autonomous drive assistance (seeSec. 2 for more details). In a user experience (UX) point of view, Symbioz represents a vision of thenear future mobility (by around 2030): it is a tentative of fusion between a vehicle and a living space.
The care for the passenger's comfort and peace of mind coexists with the experimentation of
innovative technologies for controlling the car's behavior, internal atmosphere and feel. In that
scope, the whole project has developed a multisense design approach involving research andapplications in different design domains such as texture, color, light, sound, and even scent.
With regard to sound, the project offered two main sound design challenges: the design of an
external VSP sound (Vehicle Sound for Pedestrians), and the design of a collection of sounds for the
car's interior (cockpit sounds). The VSP comes in the standard issue addressed by the silence ofelectric vehicles that should nevertheless signify their presence (6). This part will not presently bepresented as it is mainly based on results derived from previous projects assumed by the same
research team (7). The present paper will focus on the internal cockpit sounds that really constituted
a laboratory for studying the future of sonic HMI in the automotive context. We then designed
innovative solutions considering two main directions – further detailed in the paper:• Exhaustiveness. We processed all passengers / cockpit interactions related to the three constitutive
and explicit Symbioz's driving modes: Classic, Tonic and Autonomous. But more precisely andinterestingly, the availability of the Autonomous driving mode created new design challenges, suchas: how to communicate the levels of autonomy, or attention, of the car and its processing unit? How
to reassure the passengers that everything is OK when the car is self-driving?
• Spatiality. On the basis of the dedicated sound diffusion device implemented in the car, wedeveloped an original concept of spatial sonic HMI. Every sound played in Symbioz's cockpit(blinkers, alarms, info sounds, …) is placed in a virtual acoustic space. In each driving mode, thesounds slightly move around virtual positions, with different degrees of jitter and reverberation. For
instance, in Tonic driving, blinker sounds are firmly placed in the direction the car takes whereas inAutonomous driving, these same sounds are oriented much loosely, since no passenger focuses ondriving. By moving in space, HMIs become less intrusive/annoying and more natural, as spatialchanges translate into subtle timbral shifts (due to phasing and reflections in the cockpit's walls).
Then, as a challenging and original user context, the paper focuses on the Autonomous Drive(AD) sequence and furthermore develops all the ins and outs of the workflow: from the conceptualand multidisciplinary brainstorming of the role of sound in that context (sec. 2.1) to the descriptionof the final designed sounds (sec. 2.4), going through presentation of the technical frame (Sec. 2.2)
and the methodological process (Sec. 2.3). Then, in order to open this experience to discussion, we
sum-up what we learned from the project (Sec. 3.1), considering it as a potential project-grounded
research that implements a research-through-design approach (8) in sound design and that aims at
contributing in sciences of sound design, a conceptual framework that we tend to progressively
implement (Sec. 3.2). For that, we especially focus on the concept of “low-intrusiveness” (Sec. 3.3)that arose from this industrial collaboration and could be a strong and relevant guideline for futuresound design contributions in that particular, or any other, applied domain.

2. FOCUS ON AUTONOMOUS DRIVE SEQUENCE
2.1 General Description and Sonic Challenge
As previously mentioned, the Symbioz demo-car gets three driving modes among which theAutonomous Drive (AD) represents an unprecedented user experience, and more broadly a future
new life situation. It mainly consists in giving to the car the ability to make decisions concerning thedrive without any human supervision or intervention. The level of autonomy implemented in
Symbioz is at the standardized level 4 – also called mind off level – (9), ranked just after levels 2 and3 (respectively hands off and eyes off), and before level 5 (steering wheel optional). This particularlevel 4 theoretically allows the driver to have another activity than driving, such as reading, working,moving a film or even sleeping! The kinds of decisions the car could then be able to take are, forinstance, speed adjustment, vehicle overtaking, line change, urgent breaking and all the functional
actions such as trigger/validation of the Autonomous Drive or return to a Manual Drive (actually,
Classic mode). For that, the vision and the monitoring of the road and its vicinity is assumed to be
360° wide by means of a large number of sensors placed around or inside the car: frontal or angularradars, LIDARs systems (LIght Detection And Ranging), digital cameras, ultrasonic devices, etc. All7162

the data captured by this exhaustive equipment are analysed by central processing units that areembedded in the car and aimed at defining the best course of actions for a safe and pleasant drive.
In that frame, the role of sound seems then naturally relevant, and even crucial. In fact, being
Autonomous Drive an eyes off situation by default, visual informations are obviously no longer
efficient to transmit informations about the vehicle state – and especially if the driver needs to regain
control of the vehicle. Moreover, Autonomous Drive inherently involves the fact that driver andpassengers must be fully confident about the brain capacities of the car in order to delegate their role
without any apprehension. This cognitive mechanism is usually called re-assurance (10,11): ittargets trustworthiness of the artificial intelligence responsible for driving and tends to evacuate allkinds of uncertainty and doubts in user’s mind. Among other factors, re-assurance can be promoted
by several cues of good functioning sent by the central processing system to the passengers, during
the autonomous driving sequence. According to what we stated above, these cues must be sonic cuesand should be as meaningful as possible to deliver the right information at the right moment, without
being too intrusive nor annoying. All these latter issues form the global challenge of sound forelectric/autonomous vehicles in general, and for Symbioz in particular.
2.2 Technical Frame
Relatively to the sound component, the Symbioz project rested upon a complex technologicalframework and apparatus. It is mainly based on a two-fold architecture mutually connected via a
direct physical link (USB) and supplied by input parameters coming from the internal car network.
The two parts of the system are: i) an encoded sound database stored in memory and an audio
playback library running on the central system processor unit (Nvidia GPU) ; ii) a multichannel
spatial decoding software attached to a 16-point hardware diffusion device implemented in the car(adapted from the Phantom technology by Devialet4). For any of the 60 sonic HMI of the soundcollection designed for Symbioz – especially those concerning Autonomous Drive –, the synopsis of
the technical protocol was the following: from an information sent by the central system concerninga current vehicle’s state (e.g., battery level) or an action currently achieved in the cockpit (e.g.,
blinker), the corresponding encoded HMI is selected and sent to the multichannel component which
decodes its features (level, loop size, etc.) and its spatial properties, then implement and play it on
the hardware diffusion device via a proprietary virtual acoustic rendering tool.
The multi-loudspeaker system proposed by Devialet was inspired by the initial idea to makeconverge the inside of the vehicle with the living space (see above). It offers an original listening
experience inside automotive cockpit by means of two dedicated hardware developments. First,
miniaturized sound diffusion modules (inspired by the Phantom technology, adapted to low acoustic
load volumes) replacing traditional in-door speakers, and located in the dashboard, B-pillars andbehind the rear seats. Second, the “Diffusors”, which are placed in empty spaces of the cockpit’s
structure and are connected to the modules in order to create a network of virtual loudspeakers andincrease the degree of freedom in terms of spatialisation and immersion. With regard to this very
specific sound apparatus and technology, the testing and tuning phases were done on a back-up car(with nearly the same interior volume and configuration than Symbioz) during the major part of the
project. Because of the complex and highly multidisciplinary development of the demo-car, we only
had at our disposal few workshops on a Symbioz mockup (Figure 1a) and two tuning sessions on the
final release of the vehicle for an ultimate tuning phase before the official reveal (Figure 1b).

Figure 1 – (1a, left) Works on the Symbioz mock-up by different teams (software, sound, light, etc.) at
Renault’s studio; (1b, right) Works on the Symbioz final version in the very late of the project.
4

https://www.devialet.com/fr-fr/story-symbioz-demo-car/7163

2.3 Sound Design Process
The development workflow of the 60-item sound collection mainly involved the design andspecification of two main sonic dimensions: timbre (spectral content and temporal evolution), andspace (localisation, spatial image and dynamics). A third basic dimension was also carefully taken
into consideration during the testing and tuning phases: intensity, i.e. sound level at which the sonic
HMIs should be diffused with regard to their functionality or context of use, and that directly relieson their saliency with regard to the background noise (see also Sec. 3.3).
Conception of timbres was done in the frame of the multisensory design approach mentioned
above. It was inspired by the research work made by Superface design agency 5 on the materials used
to fit cockpit’s structure (doors, top) or elements (seats, dashboard). Moreover, several physicalsamples available in Superface’s material database and involved in this design research (wood,
aluminium, bakelite, etc.) served as primary sources of sound that were thoroughly recorded andused hereafter in different transforming/mixing processes to answer some insights of the overalldesign brief (authenticity, expertise, crafts, collective memory, etc.) and relationships with the othermodalities, especially lights and colors.
Conception of spaces was also done in the same multisensory design frame and tried to answer
another important part of this same brief that specified on how to “sculpt” the inner space of the
cockpit. For that, we used the multichannel Devialet device in order to develop the concept of spatialsonic Human-Machine Interface. In fact, each HMI of the collection was placed in the 3D-space ofthe cockpit by defining its localisation (azimuth and elevation), its spatial image (width) and its
dynamics (jitter), the latter describing how the spatial features evolves along time. Values and rangesof these parameters – together with the modeling of a virtual room acoustics of the cockpit – werefitted to the main character attached to each driving mode: Classic à neutral/natural, Tonic à
focused/damped, and Autonomous à amplified/diffused (Figure 2)

Figure 2 – Depiction of the spatialisation concepts of the three driving modes of Symbioz: natural forClassic (left), focused for Tonic (middle), diffused for Autonomous (right)
This being, this complex sound design process led us to develop ad-hoc tools for prototyping andharmonizing the whole set of sounds. First, an environment for realizing quick prototyping based on
basic components (oscillators, broadband noise, filters) was especially built to sketchgross-categories of HMI’s spectral contents and temporal morphologies; these sound mock-ups werethen refined by applying different sound materials (resulting from the recorded samples mentioned
above), by means of additive analysis/synthesis or cross-synthesis standard techniques. Second, ameta-scoring environment that gathered all the sound parameters used to design the HMIs was
implemented in order to be able to organize – and harmonize – this large sound production. This kindof holistic approach was quite relevant to manage similarities (invariance) and differences(modulations) in terms of sound description (rhythm, pitch, consonance, noisiness, etc.) either fromdifferent groups of HMIs (e.g., Classic, Tonic and Autonomous), or from different HMIs in a samegroup (namely, Autonomous Drive). This finally helped to reach a certain consistency between orwithin pre-defined sound categories of the whole collection.
2.4 Sound Design Production
The Symbioz demo-car gets 10 sounds related to Autonomous Drive (AD) mode and its
corresponding explicit functionalities: ‘AD Available’, ‘AD Definitive’, ‘Hand Over Notification’,‘Hand Over Required’, ‘Minimum Risk Maneuver’, ‘Back to Manual driving’, ‘Urgent braking’,‘Line change’, ‘Trajectory change’, ‘Everything OK’.
57164

https://www.superface.fr/

These sound contains 3 types of message, ranked in crescent order of driver-agency relevance:
1. Multi-sense HMIs. A few HMIs are used to reinforce the sensorial impact of the car, in particular
the dynamics of light and scent design, which change according to the selected driving mode. For
instance, if AD is selected, the audio HMI is very bright, consonant, with smooth attack and release
shapes, and a soft diffusion level suggesting low tension, calm, and focusing on bright, sky-likelights. These HMIs have long durations (5 to 10 sec.), mimicking the slow evolution of lights.
2. Low driver-agency relevance HMIs. Some HMIs simply aims at informing driver/passengers about
decisions made by the central processing system. We call them “brain sounds”. They are used toreinforce and reassure passengers that the autonomous driving operates without flaws. The ones
called Line change and Trajectory change inform that the car makes a change of direction, before thecentrifugal force shift is felt. The one called Everything OK is a periodic reminder that everything is
working well and under control. For these sounds we used a low-intrusiveness/annoyance paradigm(Sec. 3.3). We created short and high pitched sounds (fundamental between 5 and 8 kHz.) which canbe diffused at low amplitude in the cockpit and still be clearly perceived, without being aggressive.
3. High driver-agency relevance HMIs. Other HMIs are much more important from the driver–car
relationships point of view, as they signify the need for a specific action. In that case, we decided toshape them by using the concept of “earcons” (12): musical signals with specific meanings, thatusually imply a learning process. Their fundamentals’ pitch-range are lower (200 to 500 Hz), andtheir duration are longer (main sections of 1000/1500 ms., followed by a reverb fade out).
For AD switches, we used the bichord [G B] to signify availability, and the bichord [Bb D] tosignify locking: i) with the presence of a brain sound and a slow relaxing fade-out to signify that thesystem is locked in AD mode (the brain sound signifies the on-going process to AD mode; the slow
fade-out suggests the possibility to keep hands off the steering wheel … and relax) ; ii) without thepresence of a brain sound and with a faster, more dynamic, fade out to signify that the system islocked back in manual driving mode. We used a dissonant mixture of the 2 former bichords [G Bb B
D] to signify that the AD mode needs to be abandoned, to go back to the manual driving mode.
For the Minimum Risk Maneuver situation, we used a single note [A], that is different from theprevious ones: the car is going to stop, because the AD process has failed and the driver didn't takeover. This is a rather serious situation which has two levels of severity. Therefore, we designed two
version of this specific HMI, with two different levels of perceived urgency: the first one is a loop of2500 ms., with a smooth timbre, meant to warn passengers without panic; in contrast, the second one
has a pulsation of 500 ms. and a timbre characterised by a high roughness ratio – in other words, aclassic alarm sound, announcing the danger of a possible impact.
Figure 3 shows the sonogram of the sound AD Definitive. It begins with a fast succession of two
brain sounds, to remind passengers that the car is in Autonomous Drive mode. The next section
signifies the locking onto AD mode, with a smooth fade-in and a slower fade-out, meant to suggestthat the pilot can take hands off the steering wheel. Finally, the end of this HMI is a cross-fade with alonger and brighter sound synchronized to the change of the light system's brightness.

Figure 3 – Sonogram of AD Definitive HMI (from left to right red circles  ): brain sounds reminding AD
mode setting; sound confirming successful locking in AD mode; multisense sound reinforcing light design.

7165

3. ZOOM OUT OF THE PROJECT
3.1 What We Learned?
The extreme density and complexity of the Symbioz project, added to its multidisciplinary aspect,makes it relevant to include it in a research-through-design approach (8), and then consider it as aproject-grounded research that aims at “producing knowledge instead of only solutions” (13).
Globally, the Symbioz experience brought lessons in three main areas. First, multisensory designthat led the sound design process to be inspired of, and composed with, other design dimensions.
This involved fruitful collaborative design sessions conducted by designers (the Superface team) that
resulted in transforming formalized design brief and insights to integrated design elements either invisual, auditory or olfactory domain. This forced to think about sound no more by itself but rather ininteraction with other perceptual or experiential dimensions. Second, the intrinsic inclusion oftechnology into the sound design process that, at some points, appeared to be more densifying thanlightening the integration of sonic components in the whole project. Actually, this densification
mainly came from the fact that Symbioz was a high-level technological project and that its priority
target, in terms of technology, was naturally the autonomous driving function. This assumption
consequently addressed issues about technological independence of the sound design discipline – forhow much should sound be dependent from its technical environment? –, but also about
technological sobriety that leads, in a way, to reconsider the Bauhaus approach – and especially Mies
Van der Rohe’s maxim “less is more” – in the light of sound design. Third, the crucial needs of tools
for prototyping and composing sounds. Here, the multiplicity of the application (60 sonic HMIs inall) led sound designer to develop generic tools to methodically build sound matters andmorphologies (sketcher) and organize/arrange them in a pitch-rhythm-timbre parametrical space(meta-score). This pragmatic paradigm – that appeared to be efficient either for production but also
for collaboration – could be related to the contemporary music composer practice when he/she works
on the electronic components of his/her piece, gathering sound materials (record, synthesis, etc.) thenmaking the arrangement with other sound sources (instruments, voices, etc.) in a global score.
Moreover, the main lesson that could be learned from the particular context of Autonomous Drive
application is that sounds could definitely play a leading role in (future) daily life situations whereother sensory modalities are obstructed or already recruited. This assumption has been objectively
demonstrated by several previous scientific works in many different domains such as aircraft cockpit(14), control room (15) or surgical operating unit (16). In the automotive frame, among many others,
Tardieu et al. showed that sonifying the navigation process in a cockpit central unit (processing GPS,
listening to music, searching contacts, … in the on-board computer) significantly increase the timespent to look at the road – the driving attention –, and decrease gaze movements from the windscreen
to the computer screen (17). In the Symbioz Autonomous Drive configuration, driver/passengers’sight is theoretically used for any other things than looking at the road or at the dashboard. Then –even if it has not yet been objectified as such – it seems that sounds could be of a great help to makedriver and passengers better informed of what currently happens, more confident in the technology
and finally more safe, for instance, by avoiding wrong interpretations and unexpected actions.
3.2 Contribution to Sciences of Sound Design
The last elements of reflexion (Sec. 3.1) precisely comes into the conceptual frame we recently
tried to make emerge and promote about sound design, in a tentative of integration of this field into
the broader scope of design research. In fact, by especially transposing Nigel Cross’ vision of“science of design” and his formalization of three design research sources (loci) – “people, processes
and products” – (18,19), we look at laying the foundations of sciences of sound design that will
respectively investigate the character of the sound designer, the sound design processes, tools or
methods and the status of the designed sound, i.e. what sound design finally produces (20). Then, tosome degree, we can expect that the present project may help to contribute to this approach andinform it. For instance, the two tools built on purpose (rapid sketcher and meta-score) or theconceptual thought on low-intrusiveness developed at the beginning of the Symbioz sound design
process – and partially inspired by interactions with other design fields – bring links for a global
knowledge on sound design, here understandably considered as “a discipline of study in its own right”(21) (see precisely Sec. 3.3 below for a development on low-intrusiveness). In the end, and quoting
Cross (18), this may give some elements for answering the seminal – and open – question: is there adesignerly way of knowing, thinking and acting in sound design?

7166

3.3 Immediate Intrusiveness vs. Long-term AnnoyanceIndeed, the Symbioz demo-car project has been a fruitful laboratory to explore and refine a seriesof ideas and guidelines about low-intrusiveness and low-annoyance sound design. Actually, we
started developing these guidelines since years, during our long-haul collaboration with Renault.
During many projects, and thanks to reports from testers and clients, we had the opportunity to study
how sounds played inside a car cockpit might be immediately perceived as intrusive (at first
listening), or could become annoying in the long term (after repeated listenings).
On this basis, and with the support of literature (22, 23), we started to draw few principles about
designing sounds with a minimum of intrusiveness and annoyance impact on the listener. These
pragmatic hypothesis are as follows: (a) foreground/background: intrusiveness of a sound is related
to its background; (b) timbre: a few timbral features are directly linked to intrusiveness; (c) duration:
intrusiveness of a sound is linked to its duration; (d) memory: annoyance can be enhanced by thepresence of easy-to-remember pitched elements and rhythmic patterns; (e) context: the user context
in which sounds are heard plays a role in determining if and how people judge them as annoying.
But, there are three inherent difficulties in considering these guidelines. First, they constitute a
system of constraints by themselves, with their ingrained complexity. Second, they might be in directcontrast with standard principles of sound design. For instance, in a complex human-machineinteraction (e.g., airplane cockpit) a certain type of sounds, such as important alerts, are processed as
earcons (12) that needs to be learned and stored in memory; this feature being in contradiction withpoint (d) above. So, this means that, sometimes, low-intrusiveness and low-annoyance are features
which can’t be assigned to particular sounds. The third difficulty is that in a sound design project,solutions to point (a) and (e) are not exclusively in the hands of sound designers. For instance, thequality of the background sound in a car cockpit depends on how much the car manufacturer decides
to invest in isolation and sound-proofing. In conclusion, low-intrusiveness and low-annoyance can beobtained only if all the stakeholders of a project agree on their importance.
This being said, the sounds played in Symbioz's cockpit were tentatively designed by following
the guidelines described above. Low driver-agency relevance sounds, destined to be passively heard
many times during a trip (e.g., brain sounds – see Sec. 2.4), tried to be made as less intrusive and lessannoying as possible. Actually, they were produced, mixed and diffused in order to minimize theiremergence from the cockpit's background noise, while maintaining a minimal saliency to ensure theiraudibility. On the other hand, important auditory alarms, destined to be heard in very exceptional
cases, were designed to clearly emerge from the background, then paying little attention to point (d).

4. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVESThe Symbioz demo-car project has focused on an electric and autonomous vehicle and the waysof implementing unprecedented user experiences in the automotive domain – or broadly the near
future of the mobility. One of these experiences is supported by the Autonomous Drive (AD) modethat Symbioz has implemented in the fourth (mind off) standardized level. This driving mode allows
driver/passengers to do something else than driving, and even looking at road or dashboard, andsubsequently allows sound to play an important role in the human-machine communicaiton process.
In that frame, sonic Human-Machine Interfaces (HMI) were designed, produced and implemented in
Symbioz cockpit, that relied on the highly technological software and hardware environment that thedemo-car provided, especially considering the embedded multi-channel sound diffusion system
which led to define the concept of spatial sonic HMI. This complex and multi-disciplinary project
also allowed us to develop thoughts (the concept of low-intrusiveness) and tools or methods (rapid
sketcher and meta-score) which can contribute at the same time to formalise the sound design
process, to increase generic knowledge on this discipline and to draw the conceptual framework ofsciences of sound design that we progressively tend to promote.
The perspectives of such a project could be plentiful, either in the short, medium or long term. In
the short term, the crucial question of evaluation of the designed sounds (especially in the AD mode)naturally raises and could be potentially considered in a more analytical approach using, for instance,
a car simulator or a virtual reality protocol to test the relevance of the produced artifacts together
with their underlying hypothesis. In the medium term, the question of transposing the current sounddesign process to an industrialised frame (e.g., a mass production) could be of a great importance, as
the present approach still implemented prototypic approaches (according to development workflow,tuning methods, etc.) that would be hardly feasible in an industrial context. In the long term, the7167

question on how this singular experience in the automotive world could impact a general reflexion on
the use of sound for interactions between human and machines could be opened and, if need be,transposed to many other research and application fields, among which the medical or spatial ones.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to Prof. Ercan Altinsoy, Prof. Katsuya Yamauchi and Prof. Masayuki
Takada for their invitation to participate in the Structured Session on “Design of warning sound:from honking impact to sound quality in electric vehicles” of the ICA 2019 conference.
The authors are also thankful to Nathalie Gaittet (Renault Innovation Lab), Bertrand Fatus and
Erwan Gorge (Devialet), Elise Hauville, Charleyne Serreau and Marion Chabod (Superface), Janick
Deneux (ESAD TALM Le Mans) for their tight and fruitfull interactions in the Symbioz project.

REFERENCES
1. Langeveld, L., van Egmond, R., Jansen, R., & Özcan, E. (2013). Product sound design: Intentional andconsequential sounds. In Advances in industrial design engineering. IntechOpen.
2. Suied, C., Susini, P., Misdariis, N., Langlois, S., Smith, B. K., & McAdams, S. (2005). Toward a sounddesign methodology: Application to electronic automotive sound. Georgia Institute of Technology.
3. Brewster, S., & Brown, L. M. (2004). Tactons: structured tactile messages for non-visual information
display. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Australasian user interface-Volume 28.
4. Kim, H., Seo, C., Lee, J., Ryu, J., Yu, S. B., & Lee, S. (2006). Vibrotactile display for driving safety
information. In 2006 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference. IEEE.
5. Misdariis, N., & Cera, A. (2017). Knowledge in Sound Design–The Silent Electric Vehicle: a Relevant
Case Study. In DeSForM-Sense and Sensitivity.
6. Cocron, P., Bühler, F., Franke, T., Neumann, I., & Krems, J. F. (2011). The silence of electric vehicles–
blessing or curse. In Proc. of the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
7. Misdariis, N., Cera, A., Levallois, E., & Locqueteau, C. (2012). Do electric cars have to make noise. An
emblematic opportunity for designing sounds and soundscapes. Congrès Français d’Acoustique.
8. Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design, and about
design. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS) international conference (No. 043).
9. SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee. (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms
related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. SAE International.
10. Beattie, D., Baillie, L., & Halvey, M. (2015). A comparison of artificial driving sounds for automatedvehicles. In Proc. of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing.
11. Kraus, S., Althoff, M., Heißing, B., & Buss, M. (2009). Cognition and emotion in autonomous cars. In
2009 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (pp. 635-640). IEEE.
12. Blattner, M. M., Sumikawa, D. A., & Greenberg, R. M. (1989). Earcons and icons: Their structure andcommon design principles. Human–Computer Interaction, 4(1), 11-44.
13. Findeli, A. (2015). La recherche-projet en design et la question de la question de recherche: essai declarification conceptuelle. Sciences du design, (1), 45-57.
14. Kazem, M. L., Noyes, J. M., & Lieven, N. J. (2003). Design considerations for a background auditory
display to aid pilot situation awareness. Georgia Institute of Technology.
15. Cabrera, D., Ferguson, S., & Laing, G. (2005, October). Development of auditory alerts for air traffic
control consoles. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 119. Audio Engineering Society.
16. Patterson, R. D., Edworthy, J., & Lower, M. C. (1986). Alarm sounds for medical equipment in
intensive care areas and operating theatres. Univ. of Southampton, Instit. of Sound and Vibration Res.
17. Tardieu, J., Misdariis, N., Langlois, S., Gaillard, P., & Lemercier, C. (2015). Sonification of in-vehicle
interface reduces gaze movements under dual-task condition. Applied ergonomics, 50, 41-49.
18. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design issues,17(3), 49-55.
19. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing . Springer London.
20. Misdariis, N. (2018). Sciences du Design Sonore - Approche intégrée du design sonore au sein de larecherche en design (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Technologie Compiègne (UTC)).
21. Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design studies, 1(1), 17-20.
22. Preis, A. (1987). Intrusive sounds. Applied Acoustics, 20(2), 101-127.
23. Fidell, S., & Teffeteller, S. (1981). Scaling the annoyance of intrusive sounds. Journal of Sound andVibration, 78(2), 291-298.

7168