Correction: Noise from Unconventional Aircraft: A Review of Current Measurement Techniques, Psychoacoustics, Metrics and Regulation (Current Pollution Reports, (2024), 10.1007/s40726-023-00285-4)

Abstract

The following author errors are noted and amended: An incorrect unmanned aircraft system (UAS) model identifier had been included, which entailed making amendments to: the legend of Fig. 1, the caption of Fig. 2, and the axis labelling of Fig. 31. Table 2 contained incorrect referencing and a missing reference. The reference list [1–119] required updating for the amended Table 2 references. The reference list amendment to include the missing reference means that reference numbering for refs. [69–119] is incremented by 1. The reference list also required amendment of an incorrect publication year for ref. [94]. Amended versions of the figures, table and reference list are provided in this correction. The errors identified do not affect any of the findings in the original article [120]. (Figure presented.) (Figure presented.) (Figure presented.) (Table presented.) An incorrect unmanned aircraft system (UAS) model identifier had been included, which entailed making amendments to: the legend of Fig. 1, the caption of Fig. 2, and the axis labelling of Fig. 3 1. Table 2 contained incorrect referencing and a missing reference. The reference list [1–119] required updating for the amended Table 2 references. The reference list amendment to include the missing reference means that reference numbering for refs. [69–119] is incremented by 1. The reference list also required amendment of an incorrect publication year for ref. [94]. Comparison of narrowband spectra for a range of vehicles, including two multicopter UAS (all spectra normalised to 70 dB L Aeq, with frequency line spacing Δ f = 4 Hz) Spectrograms of (top) Airbus A320 passenger jet and (bottom) Yuneec H520E hexacopter, with frequency line spacing Δ f = 4 Hz and time resolution Δ t = 0.25 s (corresponding with spectra shown in Fig. 1) Violin plots [67] for distributions of time-varying SQM values for vehicle sounds (corresponding with spectra shown in Fig. 1); diamond markers indicate 95th cumulative distribution percentile values calculation methods: N according to ISO 532-1:2017 [59], S, R, and F according to Fastl and Zwicker [54], and T according to ECMA-418-2:2022 [64] Summary of relevant studies investigating AAM detection, noticeability, perception or response with human participants Key publications Participants Exposure Outcomes Sample Locations AAM vehicles Operations Judgements SQMs influencing responsea Hui et al. [40] 37 New Zealandb Quadcopter UAS × 4 Flyover, hover Annoyance, cognitive distraction N, S, R Torija Martínez and Li [65] 30 Hampshire, southern UK Quadcopter UAS Affixedc Sound preference ordering N, S, T Boucher et al. [66] 40 State of Virginia, eastern US Quadcopter concept UAM simulation Cruise, 5° descent Annoyance N, R, T Callanan et al. [68] 28 New York State, eastern USb Quadcopter UAS × 2 Hover, fixed-speed manoeuvring Cognitive load n/a Christian and Cabell [69] 38 State of Virginia, eastern US Quadcopter UAS × 3, octocopter UAS Flyover Annoyance Unreported Rizzi et al. [70] 32 State of Virginia, eastern US Fixed-wing, 6–18 horizontal rotor concept AAM simulation Flyover Annoyance N, R, T Huber et al. [71] 19 Switzerlandb Quadcopter UAS Affixedc Detection n/a Gwak et al. [72] 50 Republic of Koreab Quadcopter UAS × 2, octocopter UAS Hover Annoyance, semantic descriptors N, S, F Torija et al. [73] 30 Hampshire, southern UK Quadcopter UAS Affixedc Loudness, annoyance, pleasantness Unreported Aalmoes et al. [74] 40 Amsterdam, northwest Netherlandsd Multicopter UAS × 4, fixed wing UAS, ‘air taxi’ UAM Flyover Annoyance Unreported Torija et al. [75] 29 Hangzhou, eastern China UAS-like contra-rotor test rig N/A Annoyance N, R, F, T, I Torija and Nicholls [76] 49 Unknowne Quadcopter UAS × 4, hexacopter UAS × 2, octocopter UAS, contra-rotor octocopter UAS Takeoff, ascent, hover, manoeuvring, flyover, landing Loudness, annoyance, pitch N, S Aalmoes et al. [77] 26 Utrecht, central Netherlandsb Quadcopter UAS, hexacopter UAS, octocopter UAS Flyover Noticeability, loudness, annoyance Unreported Green et al. [78] 30 Greater Manchester, northwest UK Quadcopter UAS, hexacopter UAS, contra-rotor octocopter UAS Takeoff, hover, flyover Loudness, annoyance Krishnamurthy et al. [79] 48 Various locationse, eastern and western US Quadcopter UAS × 3, octocopter UAS Flyover Annoyance Unreported a‘Response’ here meaning either annoyance or sound preference. Varying SQM models and implementations employed across studies bPresumed, based on available information cFastened to a stand (representing hover) dMix of urban (20), suburban (11) and ‘village’ (9) localities in the area eOnline (internet-based).