Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 Parameters |
| Bromberger, S. (2012). Vagueness, ambiguity, and the "sound" of meaning. In Analysis and Interpretation of the Exact Sciences: Essays in Honour of William Demopoulos. Vol. 78, (pp. 75–93). Berlin: Springer. |
 
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 24/11/2014, 13:47 | |
| Garner, T. A. (2016). From sinewaves to physiologically-adaptive soundscapes: The evolving relationship between sound and emotion in video games. In K. Karpouzis & G. N. Yannakakis (Eds.), Emotion in Games. Vol. 4, (pp. 197–214). Berlin: Springer. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 08/11/2016, 08:37 | |
| Halffman, W., & Radder, H. (2015). The academic manifesto: From an occupied to a public university. Minerva, 53(2), 165–187. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 12/02/2023, 18:22 | |
| Juang, D. F., Lee, C. H., Yang, T., & Chang, M. C. (2010). Noise pollution and its effects on medical care workers and patients in hospitals. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 7(4), 705–716. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 11/03/2018, 20:13 | |
| Lindemann, G., & Schünemann, D. (2020). Presence in digital spaces: A phenomenological concept of presence in mediatized communication. Human Studies, 43, 627–651. |
 
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 08/01/2024, 08:00 | |
| Some mention of sound in relation to presence (other-presence): "sounds can also be experienced as an indication of the immediate presence of another even if it is not possible to determine where that other is. Every rustling or scuffling noise can indicate the immediately experienced presence of another." | |
| Liu, Y., Sourina, O., & Nguyen, M. K. (2011). Real-time EEG-based emotion recognition and its applications. In M. L. Gavrilova, C. J. K. Tan, A. Sourin & O. Sourina (Eds.), Transactions on Computational Science: Special Issue on Cyberworlds. Vol. XII, (pp. 256–277). Berlin: Springer. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 23/04/2014, 08:09 | |
| Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004). Development of an android robot for studying human-robot interaction. In Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 3029, (pp. 424–434). Berlin: Springer. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 21/05/2009, 04:06 | |
| Vroomen, J., & Keetels, M. (2010). Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 871–884. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 25/08/2021, 10:08 | |
|
"The perception of time, however, and, in particular, synchrony among the senses, is not straightforward, because no sense organ registers time on an absolute scale. Moreover, to perceive synchrony, the brain must deal with differences in physical and neural transmission times. Sounds, for example, travel through air much more slowly than does light (330 vs. 300,000,000 m/sec), whereas no physical transmission time through air is involved for tactile stimulation, which is usually presented directly at the body surface. The neural processing time also differs among the senses, being typically slower for visual stimuli than for auditory stimuli (approximately 50 vs. 10 msec, respectively), whereas, for touch, the brain may have to take into account where the stimulation originated, because the traveling time is longer from the toes to the brain than from the nose (the typical conduction velocity is 55 m/sec, which results in a ~30-msec difference between toe and nose for a distance of 1.60 m; Macefield, Gandevia, & Burke, 1989). Because of these physical and neural differences, it has been argued that auditory and visual information arrives synchronously at the primary sensory cortices only if the event occurs at a distance of approximately 10–15 m from the observer. This has been called the horizon of simultaneity (Pöppel, 1985; Pöppel, Schill, & von Steinbüchel, 1990), assuming that, arguably, synchrony is perceived at the primary sensory cortices. Sounds should thus appear to arrive before visual stimuli if the audio–visual event is within 15 m of the observer, whereas vision should arrive before sounds for events farther away. Surprisingly, however, despite these naturally occurring lags among the senses, observers perceive intersensory synchrony for most multisensory events in the external world and not only for those at 15 m. Only in exceptional circumstances, such as the thunder that is heard afterthe lightning, is a single multisensory event perceived as being separated in time."
Pöppel, E. (1985). Grenzen des Bewußtseins. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. [Translated as Mindworks: Time and conscious ex- perience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988.] Pöppel, E., Schill, K., & von Steinbüchel, N. (1990). Sensory inte- gration within temporally neutral systems states: A hypothesis. Natur- wissenschaften, 77, 89-91. doi:10.1007/BF01131783 |
|
| "the assumption of unity. It states that, as information from different modalities share more (amodal) properties, the more likely it is that the brain treats them as originating from a common object or source. . . Without doubt, the most important amodal property is temporal coincidence . . . From this perspective, one expects intersensory interactions to occur if, and only if, information from the different sense organs reaches the brain at around the same time; otherwise, separate events are perceived, rather than a single multisensory one." |