## 3 Listening Test 1
### Results
This phenomenon can be better explained in Figure 13. Correlation looks for a linear relationship between the input and output parameters; however, the tonality calculations show a usual stepwise behavior. Some of the stimuli have no or almost negligible tonality, while some of the stimuli have higher tonal components. In particular, the right panel of Figure 13 shows that, whenever a stimulus has a strong tonality based on the hearing model, the mean annoyance evaluations for this stimulus was usually 80 or above. Since it is known from the recent literature that the effect of single tones in annoyance depends on the frequency of the tone (see, for example, References [34; 36; 37]), another method was used to calculate the correlations between the tonality and annoyance estimations. The tonal components in the vacuum cleaner noise are mainly clustered in three distinctive regions. These regions can be seen in Figures 9 and 10. The first region includes the tones at approximately 100 Hz, the second region includes the tones between 200 Hz and 1000 Hz, and the last region includes the tones above 1000 Hz. These three regions were defined as Tonality LOW, Tonality MID and Tonality HIGH. Tonality values were calculated for these defined frequency ranges based on DIN 45681 [39] and the hearing model of [PERSON] [29], and if more than one tonal component was present in these ranges, the maximum tonal penalty value was calculated. The correlation values were calculated for the newly defined single values and were presented in Table 6. For readability reasons, redundant or repetitive parameters were removed from Table 5. Here, it can be seen that, based on hearing model tonality, the low-frequency region (100 Hz) and the high-frequency region (over 1000 Hz) show moderate \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline Annoyance & 1 & 0.966** & 0.963** & 0.763** & 0.257** & 0.261* & \(-0.140\) & 0.439** \\ dB(A) & & 1 & 0.962** & 0.689 & 0.148 & 0.149 & \(-0.187\) & 0.408 ** \\ Loudness (SO) & & 1 & 0.728** & 0.244 & 0.245 & \(-0.056\) & 0.493 ** \\ Sharpness (SO + Aures) & & & 1 & 0.794** & 0.793** & \(-0.86\) & 0.439 ** \\ Sharpness (SO + Bismarck) & & & 1 & 0.999** & \(-0.105\) & 0.157 \\ Sharpness (DIN) & & & & 1 & \(-0.096\) & 0.157 \\ Tonality (Aures) & & & & 1 & 0.512* \\ Tonality (HMS) & & & & 1 & & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Correlations between annoyance estimations and psychoacoustic parameters. correlation between mean annoyance evaluations. Similar observations cannot be made for the DIN 45681 tonality calculations for the low, mid and high regions. Finally, similar investigations can also be found in Figure 14, where the stimuli with higher tonality values in the low and high ranges (hearing model) tend to have higher mean annoyance ratings (lower left and lower right panel of this figure). Ultimately, it was found that the annoyance estimations of vacuum cleaners depend mainly on the overall loudness of the signal, the degree of higher frequencies (hence sharpness), and the possible tonal components at lower and higher frequencies, mainly above 1 kHz based on the hearing model tonality. The same conclusion cannot be drawn from the use of DIN 45681. The effect of higher frequencies seems to be stronger than that of the low-frequency 100 Hz tone, which is also partly consistent with the results in [8], where the participants responded to the change in level up to 600 Hz with an increase in performance and loudness perception, while this change had no effect on annoyance perception. However, in this listening experiment, low-frequency tonality was moderately correlated with annoyance, although it was only valid for one tonality model.