Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 |
| Coward, S. W., & Stevens, C. J. (2004). Extracting meaning from sound: Nomic mappings, everyday listening, and perceiving object size from frequency. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 349–364. |
  
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 24/02/2006, 11:40 | |
| Discussing the results of the experiment: "nomic mappings were recognized more readily than symbolic mappings, but the advantage was restricted to the initial phase of the everyday listening group ... the difference in recognition of nomic and symbolic mappings was evident only during the first block of the everyday listening condition. This finding endorses the notion that mapping structures are more readily available in the nomic condition." | |
| Hint that the results of their experiment may "form the basis for intuitive mappings to artificial events ... The major benefit of using auditory icons may be to reacquaint humans with a phylogenetically familiar environment." | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 25/04/2013, 16:39 | |
|
"...material per se does not exist as for mechanical physics, but instead is separated into many other dimensions such as density, elasticity, and homegeneity. Nonetheless, people do seem to hear the material of a struck object, rather than these other properties[cite]185[/cite]." |
|
| Using his simplified algorithms for modelling and synthesis of sound (simplification by discarding parts of the algorithm that have no perceptible effect, is likened by Gaver to "cartoon sounds" analogous to visual cartoons which "capture some defining features while leaving out incidental ones." | |
| Suggests that it is a mistake that acousticians and psychologists make when they assume that hearing a sound as an event requires higher and independent thought processes (because this requires memory and experience) because the sound (these people assume) does not carry such information itself. | |
| Warren, W. H., & Verbrugge, R. R. (1984). Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: A case study in ecological acoustics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 704–712. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/04/2013, 09:53 | |
|
Reviewing previous work in the field: "These results support the general claim that sound in isolation permits accurate identification of classes of sound-producing events when the temporal structure of the sound is specific to the mechanical activity of the source (Gibson, 1966; Schubert, 1974)."* * |
|
|
Quoting Schubert*: "Schubert (1974) put this succinctly in his source identification principle for auditory perception: "Identification of sound sources, and the behavior of those sources, is the primary task of the [auditory] system" (p.126)." * (Schubert 1975) |