How would sonification performance compare to spectrogram visualization when operators face real-time monitoring constraints?

I appreciate the specificity of your question, but this archive doesn't really address the human-factors trade-off between sonification (converting data to sound) and spectrogram visualization for real-time monitoring.

That said, the preprints do touch on related territory: real-time monitoring constraints in gravitational-wave detection, which may illuminate your broader concern.

The most relevant work is [AG-2024.12-302], which directly tackles the operator burden problem. The authors note that "it can be untenable for a human operator to monitor multiple data streams in this manual fashion" and propose an ML pipeline to distill seismic data streams "into a more human-friendly format" [AG-2024.12-302]. This addresses *why* alternative data representations matter—cognitive load during simultaneous multi-stream monitoring—but doesn't compare sonification vs. spectrograms specifically.

For the detection side, [AG-2025.05-379] shows that low-latency gravitational-wave pipelines can reuse fast real-time filtering results instead of redundant computation, cutting costs "dramatically" while maintaining sensitivity [AG-2025.05-379]. This is about *computational* efficiency rather than perceptual efficiency, but it's relevant to what "real-time constraints" actually allow.

And [AG-2025.03-045] integrates "insights from computer music analysis" into spectral estimation for dark matter searches, achieving 15% precision gains [AG-2025.03-045]—suggesting that sonification concepts *do* have scientific applications, though not in operator interfaces here.

To answer your question properly, you'd need human-factors or neuroscience literature comparing auditory vs. visual monitoring performance under time pressure; these preprints assume spectrograms are the baseline format operators use.