## 3 Results
### From Continuous to Global Perceived Pleasantness Assessment
#### 3.1.2 Second Experiment  
Figure 5 depicts, for each of the 10 sequences presented in Section 2.4.2, the 1 s sound pleasantness evolution (mean values and standard deviation of the participants) and the 1 s sound level. A large variety of sequences is observed.  
Figure 4: Normalized ponderation coefficients curves: SIMPLE (\(c\) = 40, \(t\) = 0.55, \(s\) = 11), Flat, and end overweighting.  
There is a statistically significant difference in the \(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean values between the sequences, as determined by the one-way ANOVA (\(F\)(9,286) = 2.97, \(p\) < 0.01), which implies that the global assessment is not only the average of the continuous ones. Table 4 shows \(P_{\text{mean}}\) and \(GP\), along with their differences \(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean, for each sequence. A more detailed analysis of the pairs of sound sequences (two of the same trips, but run in opposite directions) leads to contrasted conclusions. For S3 & S4 and S5 & S6, which are only composed of two different sound environments, the expected tendencies are observed: sequences that evolve towards improved sound environments show higher \(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean values than sequences that evolve towards deteriorated sound environments. Nevertheless, these tendencies are not statistically significant (\(p\) > 0.05). This tendency is also contradicted by the sequences S1 & S2, S7 & S8, and S9 & S10, which show \(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean values that are not in accordance with any recency effect.  
The best linear regression model is obtained through a stepwise procedure (Bidirectional elimination). The variance of the global pleasantness \(GP\), explained by the unique predictor \(P_{\text{mean}}\) (\(b^{\star}\) = 0.87, \(t\)(8) = 4.9,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sequence Number** & **Ordered Characteristic Points** & \(\mathbf{L_{g}}\) (\(\mathbf{L_{g}}\) = \(\mathbf{L_{g}}\))\(\mathbf{-dB}\) & \(\mathbf{P_{mean}}\) & \(GP\) & \(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean \\ \hline S1 & T-V & 64 (13) & 5.1 & 6.1 & 1 \\ S2 & V-T & 61 (22) & 5.3 & 6.6 & 1.3 \\ S3 & B-BI & 69 (16) & 4.1 & 4.6 & 0.5 \\ S4 & B-Br & 68 (17) & 4.6 & 5.6 & 0.9 \\ S5 & I-M & 65 (19) & 5.0 & 5.9 & 0.9 \\ S6 & M-I & 64 (17) & 4.7 & 4.5 & \(-\)0.1 \\ S7 & ChP-D-Cha & 62 (11) & 5.5 & 7.5 & 2.0 \\ S8 & ChA-D-ChP & 62 (11) & 5.7 & 6.8 & 1.0 \\ S9 & ChA-D-I & 72 (16) & 3.6 & 4.7 & 1.0 \\ S10 & I-D-Cha & 69 (11) & 4.1 & 4.0 & \(-\)0.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Pleasantness averaged both over participants and over time (\(P_{\text{mean}}\)), the global sound pleasantness (\(GP\)) averaged over participants, and the difference between both (\(\Delta G\)_GP-P_mean), for each of the 16 sequences.  
Figure 5: Continuous perceived pleasantness, mean values over participants \(P_{\text{mean}}\) (thick black line), standard deviations (light black lines), and sound level (\(L_{\text{eq.1s}}\), purple) over time for the 16 sequences.  
\(p<0.005\)), reaches 72% (\(R^{2}=0.75\), \(F(2,8)=24.1\), \(p<0.005\)). Interestingly, the determination coefficient and the \(P_{\rm mean}\) standardized beta coefficient values are very similar to those observed between \(GP\) and \(P_{\rm mean}\) in the first experiment. In accordance with the previous observations, in this experiment, taking into account that the variables \(P_{\rm end}\) and \(P_{\rm trend}\) do not improve the \(GP\) estimates, neither does the SIMPLE modelling.