The experiment was conducted using a computer and a pair of headphones. The listeners were provided with a list of sounds that they could listen as many times they wanted. They were asked to imagine the room where they thought the sound was. After listening each sound the subjects had to fill a questionnaire and rate the size, emptiness and material of the room that they imagined using in a 5-points Likert scale. After answering questions about the scene that they imagined, a picture of the scenario (rendered in Unity) used to get the sound reproduced was showed to the listeners. They had to choose which audio fit the room best and they were asked to describe the differences between the room that they had imagined and the one in the picture. The number of sounds were 10 in total. The audio excerpt used for all the examples was a woman singing an ascending scale.

• Cave. This 3D scene shows the effectiveness of the method in an indoor and reflective environment in which late reverberation and many reflections are expected. In this case the absorption coefficient (very low) is the same for all the enclosure.

• Children's room. In this case a simple rectangular room is used, with some furniture. This scene showcases the ability of the system to deal with a complex environment since there are a lot of objects in the room, with different shapes, sizes and absorption coefficients.

Results

Significant differences for the size (p = 0.00002), emptiness (p = 0.0002) and material (p = 0.00001) perception of the reverberant room (the cave) were found by performing one-way ANOVA. A clear evidence is that 78.3\% of the participants chose the sound rendered with 50.000 rays instead of the ones created with 1.000 and 10.000 as the one that fitted the best in the cave, and this value goes up to 83\% if we only quantify the answers from people with 3D experience. This is consistent with our first hypothesis. However, in the case of a smaller, less reverberant room, only 34.8\% of the subjects picked the sound rendered with the maximum number of rays and no significant differences were found for the size nor the material of the room. There were found significant differences for the sense of emptiness (p = 0.003), which is promising considering that the main difference with the other scenario is the presence of objects in the scene.

As far as the comments about the bedroom are concerned, we got very favourable responses for both cases. The subjects specified that they had imagined scenarios quite similar to the ones that we showed to them. In the first example, the cave, only three listeners commented that the room that they imagined was smaller, whereas the rest wrote that they thought about big empty rooms with reflective materials, like stone or marble. For the children's room the main comments were about the emptiness of the room, they described common rooms, like living/dinning rooms.

These results, similar to those that [17] found in his thesis , suggest that for reverberant scenarios with low absorption coefficients the number of rays used need to be large, whereas for rooms with walls/objects with a high level of absorption the amount of rays traced don't need to be high.

On the other hand, paired t-tests of data, which is assumed normal distributed, were conducted to prove the importance of the geometry definition in the perception of the room enclosure. In the case of the children's room, only significant differences were found for the sense of emptiness and half of the participants preferred the sound rendered with the shoebox. Significant differences were found in the case of the cave for the perception of size (p = 10^6) and material (p = 0.001), which means that the simple "shoebox" geometry was rated as bigger and more reflective. This last case was the one rated as the one which fit the best in the cave scenario, which suggest that for simple geometry environments with the same material for all the enclosure, a non-complex definition is enough to render the sound.

We can conclude from our evaluation that the number of rays involved does matter for environments where the walls are reflective, whereas a large amount of rays is not necessary for rooms with enclosures and objects with high absorption coefficients. It would be interesting then to find the optimal number of rays required to get a good sound while keeping a low computational cost.

However, our second hypothesis can not be confirmed. The "shoebox" shaped approximation of the enclosure may be enough for rendering audio in simple environments, but we can not confirm that this can be applied to other geometries too. Some factors may have influenced to this results. The simplification of the reflections to only specular leads to a worse reverberation estimation. For the cave's case a low convergence ratio of the rays to the receiver have been obtained, which influences in the number of early reflections represented, which leads to a worse representation of the sound. As far as the children's room is concerned, the picture showed to the subjects may have not been the best one since the perspective makes the room look bigger. This may have yielded the subjects to rate a more reverberant sound as the one which fitted the best instead of one drier sound. In addition, the shape of both enclosures were quite rectangular, thus, for future tests a more complex geometry with different shapes will be used.