Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 Parameters |
| 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. | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 14/10/2008, 00:12 | |
| Points out that "concatenating the creak of a heavy door closing slowly with the slap of a light door slammed shut would be likely to sound quite unnatural." This is an example of higher level attributes of sound events not usually studied by acousticians. | |
Notes that sound FX CDs usually categorize by context although there is usually some further description of sound objects' hierarchy and physical properties. "A hierarchical framework that describes sounds' attributes and dimensions thus seems more likely to be generative, to delineate a space of possible sounds, rather than context-based classifications." p.21A simple hierarchy might be:  p.22while a more complex hierarchy might be:  p.24Notes that his preliminary categorisation into solid, liquid and gaseous sound does not cover all eventualities. What about fire? |
|
|
Distinguishes between musical listening (perception of a sound based on its pitch, loudness, temporal change, timbre and masking) and everyday listening (perception of the sound event itself and its environment). This is an experiential distinction or a perceptual one since any sound can be listened to in either listening mode. cf. Chion (1994, pp.25–34) etc. |
|
| A reminder that because the scientific study of sound springs from research into musical acoustics (pitch, loudness etc.), little is known of other modes of auditory perception (e.g. how do we know if someone is walking up or down stairs?). The traditional approach argues that the knowledge about a sound event (ie. everyday listening) relies on experience and memory. | |
| If radiant/direct sound is sensed it arrives at the ear before reflected/reverberant sound. For this reason is is possible to separate information about the sound from information about the environment. Additionally, the medium itself affects sound (e.g. high frequency loss in air) and changes in loudness and/or frequency usually indicate shifting sound (Doppler effect etc.). | |
| If an object's size is changed, the frequency of sound it emits changes too - frequency being the most significant factor of change among others. Therefore, a change in frequency is usually perceived as a change in size of the sound object. | |
| Recounting a third-party experiment, Gaver notes that most participants could distinguish between and estimate the size of objects dropped into water. |