Gains and losses of watching audio described films for sighted viewers

Elisa Perego

Abstract

Audio description (AD) is a unique form of communication that guarantees access to audiovisual material for blind people through an additional verbal commentary that describes relevant visual cues. In spite of its original purpose and target audience, some scholars and some guidelines maintain that AD can be useful for other sectors of the population, and suggest that sighted viewers could usefully listen to AD when ‘watching’ a film with blind people. In order to determine whether AD affects the sighted viewer’s cognitive performance and appreciation of the film, and whether AD can be exploited as an integration tool allowing blind and sighted users to mingle when ‘watching’ a film, we assessed the effect of AD on sighted viewers (n = 125, 18-28 years) empirically. Results suggest that the addition of AD to films does not negatively affect the cognitive aspects of the viewing experience (i.e., general understanding and film scene recognition), nor does it dramatically affect its overall enjoyment, whereas listening to AD without the visuals poses some challenges to sighted viewers.

Keywords
Table of contents

This paper describes an empirical study aimed at testing the cognitive and evaluative effects of audio description (AD) on sighted viewers. According to recent studies on the reception of audiovisual translation (AVT) (d’Ydewalle and De Bruycker 2007; Wissmath et al. 2009; Perego et al. 2010, 2015; Lavaur and Bairstow 2011; Fryer and Freeman 2012, 2014), cognitive effectiveness refers to the degree to which viewers understand and remember the content of a film and its pictorial details. On the other hand, the evaluative effects of film viewing entail the degree of pleasure, general appreciation, enjoyment and lack of effort experienced during the film experience. A successful film viewing experience is at the same time cognitively effective and pleasant. We know that AD is effective for blind and visually impaired people (henceforth VIPs). However, to date, there is only limited evidence on the effects of AD on sighted viewers. Knowing whether sighted viewers are able to cope with AD successfully, however, is relevant because it can tell us whether sighted viewers and VIPs can enjoy each other’s company more often when ‘watching’ films with AD together, and it can shed light on the feasibility of extending the uses of AD beyond its original purpose and target audience. In the paper, after outlining the benefits of AD for VIPs and showing its potential extended uses, we will describe an empirical study aimed at assessing the cognitive and evaluative effects of AD on sighted viewers. Then, we will discuss the results of the study with respect to our original hypotheses.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

ADLAB
2012Report on User Needs Assessment. ADLAB Project (Audio Description: Lifelong Access to the Blind) Report no. 1. http://​www​.adlabproject​.eu/
ADP
(Audio Description Project) 2009Audio Description Standards (July 2009): A Work in Progress. American Council of the Blind. http://​www​.acb​.org​/adp/
AENOR
2005Norma Española UNE 153020. Audiodescripción para personas con discapacidad visual. Requisitos para la audiodescripción y elaboración de audioguías. Madrid: AENOR.Google Scholar
Brainerd, Charles J., and Valerie F. Reyna
2002 “Fuzzy-Trace Theory: Dual Processes in Memory, Reasoning, and Cognitive Neuroscience.” Advances in Child Development and Behavior 28: 41–100. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2008 “Audiodescription Research: State of the Art and Beyond.” Translation Studies in the New Millennium 6:14–30.Google Scholar
Busarello, Eraldo
2013 “Cos’è la Cooperativa Senza Barriere Onlus.” Paper presented at the AD Day Seminar, University of Trieste, April 19, 2013.Google Scholar
Busarello, Eraldo, and Fabio Sordo
2011Manuale per aspiranti audio descrittori di audiofilm per non vedenti. Scurelle (TN): Cooperativa Sociale Senza Barriere ONLUS.Google Scholar
Cronin, Barry J., and Sharon Robertson King
1990 “The Development of the Descriptive Video Service.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 84 (10): 503–506. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Dosch, Elmar, and Bernd Benecke
2004Wenn aus Bildern Worte werden – Durch Audio Description zum Hörfilm. Munich: Bayerischer Rundfunk.Google Scholar
d’Ydewalle, Géry, and Wim De Bruycker
2007 “Eye Movements of Children and Adults While Reading Television Subtitles.” European Psychologist 12:196–205. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Gregory
1975The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pitman: An All-Audio Adaptation of the Teleplay for the Blind and Visually Handicapped. Unpublished MA thesis San Francisco State University.Google Scholar
Frazier, Gregory, and Ida Coutinho-Johnson
1995The Effectiveness of Audio Description in Providing Access to Educational AV Media for Blind and Visually Impaired Students in High School. San Francisco: Audio Vision.Google Scholar
Fryer, Louise, and Jonathan Freeman
2012 “Presence in Those with and without Sight: Audio Description and its Potential for Virtual Reality Applications.” Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation 5 (1): 15–23.Google Scholar
2013 “Cinematic Language and the Description of Film: Keeping AD Users in the Frame.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 412–426. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Can You Feel What I’m Saying? The Impact of Verbal Information on Emotion Elicitation and Presence in People with a Visual Impairment.” In Challenging Presence: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Presence, ed. by Anna Felnhofer, and Oswald D. Kothgassner, 99-107. Wien: facultas.wuv.Google Scholar
Grimes, Tom
1991 “Mild Auditory-Visual Dissonance in Television News May Exceed Viewer Attentional Capacity.” Human Communication Research 18 (2): 268–298. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Guichon, Nicolas, and Sinead McLornan
2008 “The Effects of Multimodality on L2 Learners: Implications for CALL Resource Design.” System 36 (1): 85–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
(1959) 2000 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 113-118. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koolstra, Cees M., Allard L. Peeters, and Herman Spinhof
2002 “The Pros and Cons of Dubbing and Subtitling.” European Journal of Communication 17: 325–354. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Krejtz, Izabela, Agnieszka Szarkowska, Krzysztof Krejtz, Agnieszka Walczak, and Andrew Duchowski
2012 “Audio Description as an Aural Guide of Children’s Visual Attention: Evidence from an Eye-Tracking Study.” In ETRA ‘12, Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, 99-106. New York: ACM. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Krejtz, Krzysztof, Izabela Krejtz, Andrew Duchowski, Agnieszka Szarkowska, and Agnieszka Walczak
2012 “Multimodal Learning with Audio Description: An Eye Tracking Study of Children’s Gaze during a Visual Recognition Task.” In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP ‘12), 83-90. New York: ACA. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Annie
1995 “Defining Audio/Video Redundancy from a Limited Capacity Information Processing Perspective.” Communication Research 22:86–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Annie, Satoko Kurita, Ya Gao, and Bridget Rubenking
2013 “Measuring Television Message Complexity as Available Processing Resources: Dimensions of Information and Cognitive Load.” Media Psychology 16 (2): 129–153. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Annie, Shuhua Zhou, Nancy Schwartz, Paul D. Bolls, and Robert F. Potter
2000 “The Effects of Edits on Arousal, Attention, and Memory for Television Messages: When an Edit is an Edit Can an Edit be too Much?” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44 (1): 94–109. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lavaur, Jean-Marc, and Dominique Bairstow
2011 “Languages on the Screen: Is Film Comprehension Related to Viewers’ Fluency Level and to the Language in the Subtitles?” International Journal of Psychology 46: 455–462. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Morisset, Laure, and Frédéric Gonant
New Media Consortium
2005The Horizon Report. S.l.: The New Media Consortium. http://​www​.nmc​.org​/pdf​/2005​_Horizon​_Report​.pdf
Packer, Jaclyn
1996 “Video Description in North America.” In New Technologies in the Education of the Visually Handicapped, ed. by Dominique Berger, 103-107. Montrouge: John Libbey Eurotext.Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan
1986Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peli, Eli, Elisabeth M. Fine, and Angela T. Labianca
1996 “Evaluating Visual Information Provided by Audio Description.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 90 (5): 378–385. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Perego, Elisa, Fabio Del Missier, Marco Porta, and Mauro Mosconi
2010 “The Cognitive Effectiveness of Subtitle Processing.” Media Psychology 13 (3): 243–272. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Perego, Elisa, Fabio Del Missier, and Sara Bottiroli
2015 “Dubbing and Subtitling in Young and Older Adults: Cognitive and Evaluative Aspects.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 23 (1): 1–21. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Piety, Philip J.
2003Audio Description: A Visual Assistive Discourse. Unpublished thesis Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Piety, Philip J.
2004 “The Language System of Audio Description. An Investigation as a Discursive Process.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 98 (8): 453–469. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rai, Sonali, Joan Greening, and Leen Petré
2010A Comparative Study of Audio Description Guidelines Prevalent in Different Countries. London: Media and Culture Department, Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB).Google Scholar
Remael, Aline, and Gert Vercauteren
2011Basisprincipes voor audiobeschrijving voor televisie en film [Basics of audio description for television and film]. Antwerp: Departement Vertalers and Tolken, Artesis Hogeschool.Google Scholar
Remael, Aline, Nina Reviers, and Gert Vercauteren eds
2015Pictures Painted in Words: ADLAB Audio Description Guidelines. Trieste: EUT. http://​www​.openstarts​.units​.it​/dspace​/handle​/10077​/11838
Reyna, Valerie F., and Charles J. Brainerd
1995 “Fuzzy-Trace Theory: An Interim Synthesis.” Learning and Individual Differences 7 (1): l-75. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Salway, Andrew
2007 “A Corpus-Based Analysis of Audio Description.” In Media for All. Subtitling for the Deaf, Audio Description, and Sign Language, ed. by Jorge Díaz-Cintas, Pilar Orero, and Aline Remael, 151-174. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schmeidler, Emilie, and Corinne Kirchner
2001 “Adding Audio Description: Does it Make a Difference?” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 95 (4): 197–212. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Joel
2007 “Audio Description: The Visual Made Verbal.” International Journal of the Arts in Society 2: 99–104.Google Scholar
Szarkowska, Agnieszka, Izabela Krejtz, Krzysztof Krejtz, and Andrew Duchowski
2013 “Harnessing the Potential of Eye-Tracking for Media Accessibility.” In Translation Studies and Eye-Tracking Analysis, ed. by Sambor Grucza, Monika Płużyczka, and Justyna Zając, 153-183. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thomas, Angela
2007Youth Online: Identity and Literacy in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wissmath, Bartholomäus, David Weibel, and Rudolf David
2009 “Dubbing or Subtitling? Effects on Spatial Presence, Transportation, Flow, and Enjoyment.” Journal of Media Psychology 21: 114–125. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Zubek, John P. ed.
1969Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar