Taxonomy and Definitions for Sonification and Auditory Display

Source: Thomas Hermann, “Taxonomy and Definitions for Sonification and Auditory Display,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Auditory Display (2008), ICAD08 pp. 1–8. (Hermann, 2008) Local PDF

Central claim

Sonification requires a systematic, reproducible relation between data and sound. Music, functional sound and data-controlled music overlap, yet remain distinct categories.

Evidence and method

Hermann proposes a working definition and taxonomy after comparing established sonification methods, artistic uses, auditory displays and forms of interaction. The paper makes a conceptual proposal for debate rather than testing it experimentally.

A technique counts as sonification only when sound reflects properties or relations in input data, the transformation is defined, identical data and interaction yield structurally identical sound and the system can operate with exchanged or repeated data (p. 2). Randomness may remain, but its role should be declared and should preserve the listener’s ability to interpret the data (p. 3).

Hermann places music and functional sounds in overlapping sets and defines sonification as a subset of functional sound (p. 5). When data controls an aesthetic effect while its rules remain opaque to the listener, “data-inspired music” or “data-controlled music” may be more exact terms (p. 5).

The taxonomy separates monitoring, triggering, parameter adjustment, excitatory interaction, navigation, auditory biofeedback and activity supported by sound (pp. 6–7). In auditory biofeedback, a person’s activity produces sensor data and the resulting sound depends on that activity (p. 6).

Key concepts

• Sonification: A systematic, reproducible and data-dependent method of generating sound.
• Functional sound: Organised sound made to support a goal that can overlap with music.
• Data-controlled music: Data affects an aesthetic result without necessarily communicating its source or relation.
• Closed interaction loop: Sound and action connect at different levels of user control.
• Auditory biofeedback: A user’s activity becomes data that determines an audible response.

Limits

The definition is normative and other research may draw the boundary differently. The paper predates current consumer wearables and generative music services, and it cannot show that Endel’s mappings are systematic, perceptible, therapeutic or effective. Those claims require direct technical and empirical evidence.

Use for the generative-functional-apps presentation

Do not call Endel a sonification merely because it responds to time, weather, movement or health data. If listeners cannot interpret the relation, “data-controlled functional music” is safer. “Responsive” describes causation without proving transparency or agency.

The taxonomy also blocks an easy claim that the listener becomes a co-author. Choosing a mode counts as triggering or navigation, while sensor data can close a causal loop. Intentional musical control requires more evidence. Hermann’s overlap between music and functional sound shifts the question from “is this still music?” to which listening goal and design criteria organise it.

references