## 2 Materials and Methods
### Comparison of Alarm Sounds in China and France
#### 2.2.4 Production of a User Perception Profile
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Scale and Analysis Method** & **Types** & **Explanation** & **Scale** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{3 different scales of rating} & \multirow{3}{*}{Alertness (AL)} & Alertness (AL) gives us the perceived capacity of this specific sound to attract the attention of the respondent upon listening. & \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Seriousness (SE) & Seriousness (SE) tells us how severe the linked situation is as perceived by the respondent. & A scale of 1 to 7 \\ \cline{2-3}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Annoyance (AN)} & Annoyance (AN) tells us how discomforting the sound is as perceived by the respondent. & \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Principal Component Analysis (PCA) & This method helps us evaluate consensus among participants as well as determine some possible relationships between variables. & \\ \cline{2-3}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA)} & It aims at studying which variables are most significant as well as understanding if certain groups exist in the data. \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Multiple Regression Model & The purpose of this method is to obtain a precise insight into the relationship between our different variables. & \\ \cline{2-3}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Regression trees} & The point here is to obtain a convenient prevision representation based on the gathered results & \\ \cline{2-3}  & & & \\ \cline{2-3}  & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Evaluation scale and analysis method of sounds. Figure 3: Oscillogram of study sounds showing 2 DoE parameters. The results of Observation 2 are shown in Figure 4. Additional detailed findings and analyses are provided in Supplementary Note S6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{34.1 pt} p{34.1 pt}} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Observation** \\ \hline
1 & The perception of alertness, seriousness, and annoyance degree is consensual among our respondents. \\ \hline
2 & Global perception is also found to be consensual between French and Chinese respondents. However, some disparities in interpretation can be observed across sounds. \\ \hline
3 & After analyzing the most significant variables and interactions, it appeared that 3 of the initial parameters were truly significant: number of note repetitions, length of a single note, and total duration of the sound. \\ \hline
4 & Differences emerge for some specific parameters of the DoE based on the origin of respondents, for instance, for the duration and frequency parameters. \\ \hline
5 & Regression trees [32] allow us to pick up parameters for the different sounds. However, some compromises have to be made. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Main findings from the survey. Figure 4: The results of PCA: (**a**) PCA applied to the Franco-Chinese dataset showing groups and consensus (AN output); (**b**) biplot showing sounds and variables project on 2D PCA plan (3 outputs). In Figure 4a, 90 learning sounds assessed by French respondents (blue) and 90 sounds assessed by Chinese respondents (red) are predicted. The six colored circles represent how the two groups rate the same sound. The difference in perception can be seen intuitively. In Figure 4b, the blue arrows represent the French respondents, and the red arrows represent the Chinese respondents, so it is clear that the distribution is clearly separated, but we can still observe arrow beams approaching each other, so the participants representing China and France have partially identical opinions on the three rating criteria.