A proof of concept participatory study on virtual sound immersion: developing an inclusive prototype to improve the experience of planning leisure activities outside the home

Abstract

Individuals with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles have little access to out-of-home activities during their free time. A lack of information on activities and the characteristics of the outside environment often prevents them from investing in or obtaining new experiences. When they do participate, they often encounter difficulties and various obstacles that lead to failed attempts. This may lead to disengagement and a significant reduction in their social participation. The aim of this study was to co-construct a prototype based on the user’s needs and evaluate its feasibility and social validity from an exploratory perspective. A participatory research model using a mixed method based on an iterative design thinking methodology was used. The results show that describing the sensory attributes of environments increases people’s sense of familiarity and self-evaluation of accessibility. As a proof of concept, a virtual sound immersion prototype has been developed. It enables users to explore the sound environment and project themselves into new activities, including the emergence of the idea, the journey to get there and the performance of the activity itself. This study establishes the first step in the development of inclusive assistive technology and discusses issues related to the universal accessibility of the device.

Les personnes présentant des profils sensoriels et/ou cognitifs atypiques ont peu accès aux activités extérieures pendant leur temps libre. Le manque d’information sur les activités et les caractéristiques de l’environnement extérieur les empêche souvent de s’investir ou de vivre de nouvelles expériences. Lorsqu’elles participent, elles rencontrent souvent des difficultés et divers obstacles qui conduisent à des échecs. Cela peut conduire à un désengagement et à une réduction significative de leur participation sociale. L’objectif de cette étude était de co-construire un prototype basé sur les besoins des utilisateurs et d’évaluer sa faisabilité ainsi que sa validité sociale d’un point de vue exploratoire. Une recherche participative utilisant une méthode mixte basée sur une méthodologie de conception itérative a été utilisé. Les résultats informent que la description des attributs sensoriels des environnements augmente le sentiment de familiarité et les possibilités d’auto-évaluation de l’accessibilité . Un prototype d’immersion sonore virtuelle a été réalisé à titre de preuve de concept. Il permet aux utilisateurs d’explorer l’environnement sonore et de se projeter dans de nouvelles activités, y compris l’émergence de l’idée, le trajet pour y parvenir et la réalisation de l’activité elle-même. Cette étude constitue la première étape du développement d’une technologie d’assistance inclusive et aborde les questions liées à l’accessibilité universelle de cette solution.

Keywords:

• leisure activities
• participation
• accessibility
• environment
• sensory profile
• sound immersion
• cognitive profile
• universal design
• familiarity
• design thinking

Mots clés:

• activités de loisirs
• participation
• accessibilité
• environnement
• profil sensoriel
• immersion sonore
• profil cognitif
• conception universelle
• familiarité
• réflexion sur la conception

Introduction

Leisure activities improve the well-being and quality of people’s lives. They can foster self-reflection, personal growth, as well as a sense of connection to both others and community (Hutchinson et al., 2017). On a cultural level in Western countries, the value of leisure has increased over generations, while the centrality of work declined (Twenge et al., 2010). At a social level, leisure promotes cohesion and facilitates network expansion (Lundberg et al., 2011). Social networks are deemed crucial determinants of employment and independence (McGhee Hassrick et al., 2020). At the personal level, they contribute to fulfillment, relaxation, and pleasure (Cantin et al., 2017). Moreover, participation in leisure activities can positively affect self-esteem, confidence (Patterson & Pegg, 2009), sense of control (Craik & Pieris, 2006), coping skills (Specht et al., 2002), and health (Chen & Chippendale, 2018). Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006, p. 5) specifies the obligation of signatory states to take measures to promote universal and equal access to cultural and recreational activities, leisure, and sports. Paragraph five states that everyone should be able to “realize their creative, artistic, and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit but also for the enrichment of society.” However, studies show that many people, especially those with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles, are hindered from planning and performing these activities (Johnson et al., 2017; Stacey et al., 2019; Tétreaultet al., 2013). Atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles refer to different diagnoses, such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, intellectual disability, and other neurodevelopmental disorders. For example, individuals on the autism spectrum usually struggle with light and sound and need explicit planning to compensate for difficulties in cognitive executive functioning. Some live independently, while others live in specialized facilities and require daily support.

The first step of choosing an activity is widely reduced in specialized contexts; leisure activities are mostly planned by social workers in partial consultation with residents (Wehmeyer & Bolding, 2001). Although the range of available choices is wider for more independent people, their motivation may be hampered by repeated failures and negative experiences in less inclusive environments (Ramsten et al., 2020). The social pressure to compensate for one’s disability and be accepted reinforces feelings of exclusion and shame, with consequences for self-esteem and motivation (Gallant et al., 2019; Morozova et al., 2015). Another element that determines the choice of activity relates to financial accessibility (Ouellet, 2004).

Once an activity is selected, planning may be problematic. Perceived barriers and important information such as weather conditions, available public transport, timetables, access maps, and the physical and social characteristics of the site can restrain participation (Badia et al., 2011). The available information is often incomplete, difficult to find, or challenging to understand. Although digital tools are helpful, they are not very accessible to people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles (Bunning et al., 2009; Hoppestad, 2013).

An initial study on the needs of people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles was carried out prior to this paper (Veyre et al., 2022). The results show that reaching the location and performing an activity can also present obstacles, some of which are unforeseen. Using an automatic ticket machine, traveling by public transport, reading information signs, and adapting to unforeseen events, such as train cancellations or work on public highways, are all tasks that can be challenging. Nevertheless, the desire to discover and explore new activities is still present, despite the obstacles encountered in getting involved.

Physical accessibility of the premises, the equipment available, the quality and quantity of support offered, and the training of staff or volunteers onsite are all factors that influence the quality of participation (Ouellet, 2004). Overcoming barriers requires significant physical and cognitive resilience, which may already be diminished by other factors, such as a high level of fatigue, hypersensitivity, or repeated failures in the steps preceding the activity. The pleasure of performing leisure activities no longer compensates for the pre-activity discomfort that may have been encountered. Thus, people with atypical cognitive and/or sensory profiles may experience difficulties planning and performing leisure activities simply. These difficulties have strong repercussions on quality-of-life and lead to issues such as sedentarization, isolation, or social exclusion (Cantin et al., 2017; Mobily & Johnson, 2021). They are directly linked to physical and mental health risk factors, leading to impoverished occupations, difficulties in becoming self-sufficient, and reduced engagement in training or work activities (Anaby et al., 2009; Milner & Kelly, 2009).

To reduce these risks, thought needs to be given to making environments more inclusive. Pegg and Compton (2004) mentioned that building access for people with disabilities include steps such as having similar activity choices or having equal access to recreation areas or facilities. Stumbo et al. (2011) added that broader participation factors such as transportation and usability should be considered. On a practical level, developing accessible assistive technologies for planning activities creates opportunities to promote social participation and positive experiences through readily available support (Wehmeyer et al., 2008). Although many platforms exist in the field of leisure, they do not meet all needs, especially of people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles (Ashburner et al., 2013; Stiegler & Davis, 2010).

The objective of our prior study (Veyre et al., 2022) was to analyze existing assistive technologies to examine the main features of currently available tools in Switzerland. It was found that the indicators used refer mainly to physical accessibility. Sensory characteristics are poorly documented. Szaszák and Kecskés (2020) also note the need for paying more attention to sensory and social aspects. Some technologies are taking affluence and crowds into account. Others developed precise descriptions of environments using pictures. Sounds are scarcely considered and often problematic in both neurotypical (Paszkiel et al., 2020) and neurodivergent populations (Veyre et al., 2022). Furthermore, Williams et al. (2021) confirmed that 50–70% of individuals with autism are affected by decreased sound tolerance.

Inclusive numerical tools for fostering social participation and e-inclusion resources are scarce (Owuor et al., 2018). To avoid the potential inequalities generated by digital technology, Sheehan and Hassiotis (2017) propose increased inclusion of users in the development and implementation of digital interventions. This study aimed to co-construct a technology that allows planning and access to activities outside the home; accounting for the needs of people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles, and the different actors involved in service organization. The secondary objective is to assess the technology’s feasibility and social validity from an exploratory perspective.

Method

To develop the prototype and evaluate its feasibility and social validity, a participatory research model using a mixed iterative method based on design thought was used. A “proof of concept” is an approach designed to evaluate the feasibility of a device from different angles before it’s conclusive development (Prasanna et al., 2021). To structure the proof of concept, a vertical prototype was preferred (Hall, 2001). It is defined as the nearly complete implementation of a small set of functionalities. A vertical prototype comprising the recorded sounds provided a better understanding of the complex nature of soundscape descriptions. This resulted in the creation of a modest but usable database. Second, an overview of the horizontal prototype summarizing the graphical and organizational features of the system was worked upon.

The study was conducted from April 2021 to March 2022. Data collection and expert consultations were conducted in the various French cantons of Switzerland. The research was conducted in three steps inspired by the iterative processes used in design thinking (McLaughlin et al., 2019): Document the (1) needs of all stakeholders; (2) co-construction of the prototype; and (3) experimental study aimed at documenting social validity. The results were analyzed throughout the project and a logbook simultaneously tracked the relevant information. Finally, an iterative process between the research team and the people involved facilitated the co-construction of all the steps. Each step is described in detail below.

Three authors formed the research team (including a person with autism spectrum condition). Collaboration was established with a follow-up group. Furthermore, regular consultations were conducted with six individuals with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles to ensure an in-depth participatory research process (Anadón, 2007).

Five focus groups were included during the follow-up period. Participants with varied profiles, expertise, skills, and experience covered three fields: disability (accessibility and inclusive processes), information technology (computer and sound engineering), and leisure (social participation and citizenship).¹ The same team participated throughout all five focus groups. Only the sound engineer joined for the fourth one when results and team consultation oriented the prototype on auditive aspects and adaptation. Each focus group informed different phases on the three phases of the study. Step one: The first focus group described each person’s experiences in leisure activities and environments to create an appropriate interview guide. The second group discussed the results of the semi-structured interviews to balance the development of technology with the identified needs. Step two: The third focused on the prototype, while considering feasibility aspects. The fourth enabled the reframing of a proof of concept specifically dedicated to the sensory aspects of sound and creation of the questionnaire’s first draft. Step three: The fifth enabled the team to illustrate the shape of the prototype based on the questionnaire results and discuss aspects of social validity in parallel with accessibility considerations. During all the focus groups, time was given to discuss and refine methodological aspects and consider each perspective of the interprofessional teams in the next steps.

Step one: identification of needs

Semi-structured interviews

Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to highlight the extracts from the corpus relevant to the research objectives (Blanchet & Gotman, 2007; Tétreault, 2014). Participants were recruited from the professional network of the monitoring team and peer support association. Participation in the study was voluntary. Research was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and determined not to meet the Human Subjects Research criteria given that no identifying personal health information was collected on any participants.

Six interviews were conducted with participants with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles. Three themes were discussed. First, the characteristics of the activities and environments involved in free time were described. Second, the resources needed to conduct these activities were discussed. Finally, photographic vignette options representing a park, festivals, museum, restaurant, and sporting event were proposed. They were used to discuss the obstacles and resources identified in these environments, which were sometimes less familiar to the participants.

Four interviews were conducted with managers of leisure facilities. The following three themes were addressed. First, the managers were asked to describe the place, environment, and activities. Second, experiences related to the reception of people with specific cognitive and/or sensory profiles were discussed. Finally, vignettes describing the profiles of people with different needs were proposed. They allowed for a discussion of the resources and barriers to participation in fictional but concrete cases.

Two interviews were conducted with existing assistive technology providers. These organizations run information platforms in the form of websites or applications related to planning and accessing leisure activities in various parts of Switzerland. Three themes were discussed. First, the experiences of those responsible for the development and maintenance of information platforms were discussed. Second, continuous sources of supply and feasibility aspects were questioned. Finally, the gaps identified in the current services were discussed.

Step two: co-construction of prototype

The results of the first stage helped develop a prototype focusing on the sensory aspects of sound. It was constructed in collaboration with potential users and experts from all the previously cited fields.

Participant observations and sound recording

Following Norimatsu and Pigem (2008), participants were observed over three days. Participants included six people with atypical cognitive and/or sensory profiles. The first participant observations were designed to identify the problems. Participation of authors to leisure activities in specialized and inclusive environments enabled us to complete the in-depth analysis of needs highlighted in the interviews. It specially aimed to create a contextual understanding of the experience of people who are uncomfortable with oral language. It also helped identify actions and behaviors of educational teams and potential users. Observations were recorded throughout the process in a logbook by the authors. The second participant observation was made to record sounds to construct an immersive questionnaire (in collaboration with a sound engineer). Photographs and sound samples were recorded using different sound-recording and emission technologies, including binaural beats. Journeys and activities of users were accompanied by an author and the sound engineer. They were asked to communicate about their experience on the different soundscapes. Based on their testimonies, pleasant and unpleasant sounds were recorded. The third participant observation was designed to test and adjust the system after analyzing the results of the questionnaire and discussing them in the last focus group.

Step three: assessment of feasibility and social validity

Once the database was constructed and the first draft of the prototype created, its feasibility and social validity were assessed using a questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to assess and readjust the prototype according to user feedback.

Questionnaire based on sound immersion

An immersive auditive questionnaire was administered based on recorded sounds. It was handed to all team members and participants of interviews and focus groups. It included three distinct parts: a sensory profile of the users, a description and self-evaluation through immersion in soundscapes, and an assessment of social validity. Sensory auditory profile was assessed based on auditive items of Dunn’s sensory profile (Ismael et al., 2018). The description and self-evaluation through immersive soundscapes were designed to analyze qualitative inter-observer reliability on descriptions of sounds database. Descriptions were coded using thematic content analysis (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). Social validity was assessed based on usefulness, representativity, and social acceptability (Terrade et al., 2009). Precisely, usefulness was regarded in three sections: to increase alertness to sound; to overcome sensory constraints; and useful immersion. Representativity was based on one question “Do you consider this audio sample representative of the environment?” asked for each six given soundscapes (train station, restaurant, mall, library, grocery shop, and city street). Social acceptability was composed of two questions to inform if users found the process constraining and if it would help them explore new places. In total, 23 individuals participated in an online survey conducted between December 2021 and January 2022. Six people did not complete the survey, resulting in 17 participants who underwent the entire constraining process of sound immersion and evaluation. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling based on team members and interviewees. Participants’ descriptions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of participants.

	N = 17
Auditory profile
Typical performance	10
Probably different	5
Difference in sensory processing	2
Type of participant
Expert member of research team	6
Potential user with sensory and/or cognitive specificity	8
Manager of leisure facilities	3

Ethical considerations

Research has been performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. All data was coded to ensure that participants could not be identified. An information and consent form was validated by the participants. Given current national legislation, this study does not fall within the scope of the Federal Law on Research involving Human Beings (Article 118b, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution, 2011). The authors declare the absence of any conflict of interest in connection with the study.

Results

Identification of needs: “Leisure is sometimes hard work”

The needs of people with atypical cognitive and/or sensory profiles, managers of leisure activities, and providers of assistive technologies were diverse and heterogeneous.²

Potential users expressed the need to project themselves into a place before they got there, and for help to plan the steps that precede their arrival. They testified that they felt more secure when they had already experienced the general atmosphere of a place and were familiar with its characteristics. This highlights the need to obtain accurate sensory information. Notions of familiarity depended on the three dimensions. Participants described the need to feel familiar with the type of activity performed, the setting of the environment in which the activity took place, and/or the people present, including relatives, and the general social nature of the activity. Furthermore, they required different options for choosing and carrying out their activities depending on the energy level they felt during planning. Energy levels depend on the balance and nature of all the activities performed. They stated that their needs and the energy required to perform the activity varied according to the purpose and intrinsic meaning accorded to the activity. Most would rather use the appellation “free time” than leisure as most of them identified “leisure” as a term with a lot of social induced constraint activities. They split free-time activities into two categories: (1) Recovery activities they used for respite. Examples given for this category were “computer coding” or “reading”; and (2) Pleasant social activities to enhance social participation. This category occurred in outdoor environments and was more challenging for them. For example, one participant cited “going to a concert,” another one, “attending an exhibition opening.”

However, leisure managers face significant organizational and economic challenges. Their willingness to put resources into place to support people with disabilities is put into perspective by considering all the administrative complexities they face. Although all the participants expressed the will to be inclusive, the implementation of the initiatives varied and depended on their knowledge and representation. No manager mentioned using or knowing resources to make their place more accessible. Most were unaware of the sensory challenges that some users may face such as sensitivity to light or sound. They expressed the need to gather information (some suggested making a list of inclusive adaptations), raise awareness of their inclusive events, save time, and plan better support-staff resources to use them efficiently.

Prototyping: “Getting ready to go out of home”

To frame the scope of the prototype, the first focus was on the characteristics of the sound environment. This decision was based on observations that there was high vulnerability to noise and a lack of resources to deal with it in the study’s first phase and based on literature review. It was taken accordingly to the iterative process and part of the team members’ decisions. It was mentioned that the ulterior version could possibly include other sensory information such as proposed by virtual reality. Nevertheless, dealing with the complexity of multiple sensory interactions was not possible in the initial phase.

On site sound immersions

Sound immersions involving individuals with specific sensory profiles, members of the research team, and a sound engineer were conducted at different locations. The participants were invited to testify about the obstacles and resources they perceived in their explored environments. Meaningful urban places were selected based on participants’ experiences: shopping centers, restaurants, railway stations, and parks. The characteristics of these environments were discussed, and the possibilities for analysis explored. An exploratory analytical framework was proposed based on the pleasantness and unexpectedness of sounds. Binaural sounds were selected to allow the transcript soundscapes to be as close as possible to the natural environment. The first database included soundscapes of key environments for the participants, and a variety of unexpected sounds that could occur in each of the chosen environments.

Description of soundscapes

The database resulting from the on-site sound immersions allowed the creation of virtual sound immersions on a larger scale. A questionnaire accompanying the immersive experience allowed the 17 participants to describe the ambient sounds. First, we determined the elements they paid the most attention to. Second, we determined whether the elements were described as pleasant or unpleasant.

The average number of words quoted per person was four (SD = 1.8) in all six evaluated environments. The average number of words by location and participant was as follows: Mall 4 (SD = 1.8), Grocery shop 5 (SD = 2.3), Library 3 (SD = 1.3), City 2 (SD = 1.3), Restaurant 4 (SD = 1.9), and Station 6 (SD = 3.1). The ten most frequently described sounds in all urban soundscapes by all participants were voices (n = 66), packaging (n = 27), cash registers (n = 24), traffic (n = 20), steps (n = 16), plastic (n = 14), ventilation (n = 14), door chimes (n = 14), and sound signals such as alarm beep sound ringing (n = 14), doors (n = 13), and music (n = 13). The sounds most often described as pleasant were voices (n = 30), no sounds described (n = 8), door chimes (n = 6), steps (n = 5), and silence (n = 5). The sounds most often described as unpleasant were traffic (n = 18), packaging (n = 14), ventilation (n = 8), none (n = 7), cash registers (n = 7), plastics (n = 7), and specific vehicles (n= 7). Detailed results can be found in the appendix: Table A1.

The second part of the virtual immersion focused on what the participants described as surprise sounds to identify potentially plausible additional sounds that occur in the soundscapes. Participants were asked to explore their experiential repertoires to complete the data collection in the most relevant way possible to adjust the prototype according to their suggestions.

The average number of suggestions per participant was two. The numbers of words cited by location were mall (n = 38), grocery shops (n = 28), libraries (n = 26), cities (n = 68), restaurants (n = 32), and stations (n = 47). The most frequently mentioned possible missing sound elements were described incivilities such as fights, screams, cries, or insults (n= 31), shocks (n = 27), none (n= 25), sound signals such as alarms or sirens (n = 19), groups of children or people (n = 13), music (n = 12), dishes (n = 10), announcements (n= 9), horns (n = 9), exclamations (n = 7), and crowds (n = 7). More details can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Soundscape description by location type.

Prototype design

A horizontal prototype was planned in close partnership with an IT engineer specializing in serious games and gamification. It was designed based on a storyboard to highlight the unexpected nature of the experience. The results offer three main functionalities (illustration are available in the appendix: Figure A2).

Find an activity that matches your profile. This function enables a person to complete a user profile. The profile is established based on a sensory self-assessment in which the person judges the “obstacle” or “resource” nature of a sound. Based on this, a selection of activities corresponding to the profile is suggested.

Plan a sound route. This function allows a person to create a virtual route to prepare for a sound environment that will be encountered while moving around and performing an activity. That is, they will be able to access the trailer, allowing them to anticipate and familiarize themselves with the different sound environments that they will have to experience.

Self-evaluate during sound immersion. This function allows users to immerse themselves in complex environments. For example, it will be possible to take a sound walk in a park with little traffic, and then add more traffic, noises such as children’s laughter, dogs barking, or music.

Feasibility and social validity: “Hitting part of the target is a good start”

The questionnaire used to evaluate feasibility and social validity highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed prototype. After the sound immersion process, the participants evaluated the perceived usefulness, usability, and social acceptability of the presented prototype.

The results are presented based on the auditory profile. Individuals with identified differences in sensory processing have significantly different responses from those with typical performances (see appendix: Figure A1).The third category contains people with a moderate profile and, therefore, a probable difference in sensory processing. This type of profile appears at the interface between the typical profiles and those in which the difference is established.

Usefulness

Regarding the usefulness of the sound database for immersing oneself in a soundscape, a large majority of participants (n = 13) felt that the prototype was useful for immersion. The result is more moderate but nevertheless reports that most participants (n = 11) felt that using the prototype increased the effect of alertness to sound environments.

Participants were asked whether the prototype could overcome certain sensory constraints. However, most participants, particularly those with typical sensory profiles, refrained from answering. Four thought that it did not compensate for any sensory constraints and three people thought that it did.

Usability

The usability of each sound environment wherein the participants were immersed was evaluated. Participants were asked to assess whether the soundscape they heard was representative of the place’s description. Most participants agreed that the environments related to food (bars and restaurants: n = 15) and transport (metro and train station: n = 15) were representative and usable. Most (n = 10) participants rated open spaces (city and urban parks) as less representative. However, all participants with atypical sensory profiles rated these environments as representative of their opinions.

Social acceptability

Regarding social acceptability, the questionnaire provided information on whether the proposed activities were restrictive or pleasant. While all people with a typical sensory profile (n = 10) felt that these were not burdensome activities, two people with atypical profiles felt the presence of constraints. One participant with a probable sensory processing difference also felt that the process was constraining.

Most participants believed that sound immersion did not help them explore new places with similar atmospheres (n = 11), and six participants felt that it could help them engage with new environments. Detailed results on feasibility and social validity items are available in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Evaluation of feasibility and social validity.

Discussion

The results of this study revealed that the respondents reported engaging in many leisure activities inside and outside the home. The range of leisure activities is broad. Several factors seemingly affect the quality of the leisure experience: the nature of the activity, characteristics of the environment, energy available to the individual, and the individual’s motivation and interests. These results are consistent with those of previous studies. Specht et al. (2002) identify personal skills as particularly decisive. King et al. (2003) and the Conseil Québécois du Loisir (2007) point to the influence of environmental variables, such as the social support received, physical barriers, or financial aspects. Our results showed that the participants considered the involvement of sounds in social participation to be elementary.

Furthermore, the needs assessment showed that the category (leisure, work) of out-of-home activities had little meaning for participants regarding accessibility factors. Thus, familiarity with the environment or the activity performed is meaningful for them. Out-of-home participation is determined by many personal and environmental factors (Thalén et al., 2022). Knowing, or having an accurate picture of the place or activity allows people to reduce their stress and view new activities positively. Accurate projection of the location is a major investment factor that facilitates familiarity during the idea generation and planning stages.

The assessment of needs proved useful in developing a prototype that meets the needs of potential users. The direct involvement of individuals with atypical cognitive and/or sensory profiles in the study helped co-construct an analysis grid and database. Assessing their needs revealed the necessity for focusing on their perception of barriers to social participation and the dimensions related to resources available in a sound environment. However, this perspective on resources has scarcely been explored. Aletta et al. (2018) noted that sounds are often considered only as environmental stressors. They suggested extending the soundscape approach to sounds considered resources. Indeed, their presence is associated with faster stress recovery and better self-reported health.

Sound descriptions allowed us to test four major data collection methods adopted in soundscape studies: sound walks, interviews, listening tests, and focus groups as found by Engel et al. (2018). Similar results for sound source identification and evaluation were obtained from other studies described in this review. However, this study is unique in targeting atypical sensory profiles.

Descriptions of the soundscapes enabled us to identify the elements that attracted the attention of users. The descriptors were developed as related to perceived sound sources and matched those proposed by Aletta et al. (2016): technology, humans, and nature. Similar to our study, Axelsson et al. (2010) suggested that perceived sound sources are more important than sound levels as indicators of perceived affective quality. It appeared that the inability to identify the source of the sounds and their nature was the greatest source of discomfort for the participants in this study. More generally, the authors and study participants agreed that nature sounds contribute positively and technology sounds, such as traffic noise, contribute negatively to pleasure. Axelsson et al. (2014), found that the feeling of events related to the sounds of people conveys a positive perceived affective quality in the general population. Our results appear to differ partially. They suggest that, for people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles, crowd or social event sounds can be associated with negatively perceived affective qualities.

These findings suggest that people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles, such as those with autism, evaluate certain types of sounds differently. Williams et al. (2021) highlighted that the origins of the differences in sound evaluation and atypical behavioral responses were not homogeneous. Many individuals with autism perceive everyday sounds as excessively loud or painful. They may experience unpleasant physiological sensations, fear, and anxiety in response to specific sounds (Stiegler and Davis, 2010).

Moreover, it was noted repeatedly throughout the study that the association of sounds with other sensory modalities had a significant effect. Opening up to multi-sensory aspects would allow for a more comprehensive response to the needs of this population. Although our prototype focused on auditory aspects for feasibility reasons, multisensory dimensions cannot be dismissed. For example, regarding people with autism, 14 studies reported significant differences in sensory modulation compared to the general population (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009).

Although differences in sensory processing are recognized as clinical features of individuals with autism, little scientific information is available regarding the relationship between these specificities and participation in different spheres of activity in adulthood. Ismael et al. (2018) reviewed seven studies and showed that sensory processing had a significant impact on the leisure participation of children with autism. However, Thye et al. (2018) indicated that particular attention should be paid to distinguish between deficits in primary sensory processing and attentional and cognitive processes that may also contribute to interpreting stimuli and, therefore, participating in activities.

Participants considered documenting sensory characteristics beyond the description of tangible indicators as particularly innovative. Nevertheless, the results of this study invite reflection beyond sensory aspects. For example, social demands, crowding, staff awareness, and measures taken to promote inclusion were also considered important by participants. While evaluating feasibility and social validity, most participants felt that using the prototype increased their awareness of the sound environment. A hypothetical added value of the prototype could be diversity promotion and public awareness, particularly for those in charge of leisure services.

The usability of the prototype also raised questions regarding project development. The proposed immersions were judged as not constrained by participants with typical sensory profiles. The same activities were evaluated to constrain atypical profiles. This result reinforces the need to continue co-construction projects and propose activities that do not increase their difficulties. The main objective is to enable out-of-home activities through close partnerships to enhance social participation and empowerment through assistive technologies.

Conclusion

This study led to the development of a technology to allow planning and access to activities for people with atypical sensory and/or cognitive profiles. It helped to acquire knowledge regarding their needs when they performed activities outside their homes. This allowed us to design specialized as well as universal technological assistance devices. The prototype was considered as an application, allowing for an accurate projection of the places the person wanted to invest in. Familiarity with the environment and/or activities was identified as a central element. Knowing or having a precise image of a place or activity would allow people to reduce their stress and consider the activity more positively. The prototype aims to facilitate familiarity during the idea generation and planning stages. This is a major investment factor in increasing individuals’ social participation. Future development of the prototype will consider the topics discussed and continue co-construction in close partnership with potential users. Exploratory research on the feasibility and social validity of the process should be conducted to generalize the results of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the This work was supported by the Research Foundation for People with Disabilities (FRH) for the financial support under the framework of NTN Innovation Booster Technology and Special Needs powered by Innosuisse. [7442].

Notes

1. The team gathered an “accessibility” representative of a city in Switzerland, a representative of a disability promotion association developing a collaborative map designed to enhance accessibility, a researcher with a specific cognitive and sensory profile, a specialist in socio-cultural animation, a specialist in easy-to-read and understand language, a professor in occupational therapy, a professor in engineering, a sound engineer specializing in recording of soundscapes, a professor in the field of disability, and a scientific collaborator specialized in the field of inclusive processes.

2. More information about the in-depth results of the interviews and focus group are available in Veyre et al. (2022).

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1. Number of identified sounds by location and type of profile.

Location	Profile	Mean	SD	Median	Min	Max
Mall	Total	4	1.8	4	1	9
	Typical	4.8	2	5	2	9
	Probably different	4.4	0.5	4	4	5
	Different	3	2.9	3	1	5
Grocery shop	Total	4.8	2.3	4.8	1	8
	Typical	4.7	2.2	4	2	8
	Probably different	3.4	2.5	4	1	7
	Different	6.5	2.1	6.5	5	8
Library	Total	3.2	1.3	2.8	1	9
	Typical	3.5	2.5	3	1	9
	Probably different	3	1.4	2.5	2	5
	Different	3	0	3	3	3
City	Total	2.3	1.3	2	1	5
	Typical	2.4	1.5	2	1	5
	Probably different	1.5	1	1	1	3
	Different	3	1.4	3	2	4
Restaurant	Total	4	1.9	3.8	2	10
	Typical	5.5	2.2	5	3	10
	Probably different	3.2	1.3	3	2	5
	Different	3.5	2.1	3.5	2	5
Station	Total	5.7	3.1	5.5	1	10
	Typical	4.7	2.6	5	1	10
	Probably different	4.8	3.2	4	1	9
	Different	7.5	3.5	7.5	5	10

Figure A1. Total number of sounds identified by auditive profile. Number of surprising sounds suggested by auditive profile.

Figure A2. Illustration of part of the prototype design.