Sound Research WIKINDX |
![]() |
|
Displaying 1 - 20 of 29 Parameters |
| Atherton, C. (1993). The Stoics on ambiguity. Cambridge University Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/10/2021, 11:21 | |
| According to the Stoics, the use of ambiguity had ethical and moral implications for the welfare of the people involved (132). It is discussed and defined as part of dialectic, dealing "with the σημαινόμενα [signified] of linguistic items," because "ambiguity is by definition a linguistic phenomenon" (132–133). | |
| Bach, K. (1982). Semantic nonspecificity and mixed quantifiers. Linguistics and philosophy, 4(4), 593–605. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 20/11/2021, 10:10 | |
| Brennan, A. (2003-2017). Necessary and sufficient conditions. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from https://plato.stanford. ... s/necessary-sufficient/. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 08/10/2017, 11:35 | |
| Bridgett, R. (1999). Aural imagery: Sonic ambiguity in time based media. Retrieved November 25, 2021, from http://web.archive.org/ ... design.org.uk/aural.htm |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 25/10/2021, 13:31 | |
|
Claims that in between Chion/Schaeffer's polarity of reduced listening and causal listening exists a contimuum of aural imagery or sonic ambiguity. The lsitener is allowed her own interpretation and the sound may never be "nailed to the diegesis". Talking mainly of film sound but relates to games. cf. Christian Metz's aural object with semiotic meaning and Andrei Tarkovsky's ambiguous sound in film which "short circuit the very notion of culturally dependent notions of semiotics and the objects they represent." |
|
| 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 | |
| Clark, A. (2013). Expecting the world: Perception, prediction, and the origins of human knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, CX(9), 469–496. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/07/2018, 10:36 | |
| The top-down, predictive model "puts together the most likely set of causes whose interaction would yield (hence explain) the present input." | |
| Perception is "an active process involving the (sub-personal) prediction of our own evolving neural states." | |
|
Prediction-based models that Clark espouses "learn to construct the sensory signal by combining probabilistic representations of hidden causes operating at many different spatial and temporal scales [...] they must match the incoming sensory signal by constructing the signal from combinations of hidden causes (latent variables). The so-called 'transparency' of perception emerges as a natural consequence of such a process when it is conditioned by an embodied agent's lifestyle-specific capacities to act and to choose. We seem to see dogs, cats, chasings, pursuits, captures [...] because these feature among the interesting, nested, structures of distal causes that matter for human choice and action."
|
|
| Arguing that the model he presents does not support the view of the reality of the world being created within us (i.e. indirect perception), Clark states that: "The internal representations at issue function within us, and are not encountered by us. Instead, they make it possible for us to encounter the world. Moreover, they enable us to do so under the ecologically common conditions of noise, uncertainty, and ambiguity." | |
| perception "is a process of explaining away the sensory signal by finding the most likely set of interacting distal causes" | |
| "the brain's job is to account for the sensory signal by finding a way to generate, in a kind of rolling present, that incoming signal for itself. To do this, the brain must find the structure in the signal. But the structure in the sensory signal is mostly determined by the structure in the world (making sure that's the case is pretty much the job description if you are a sensory transducer). So the best way to anticipate/match the incoming signal is to discover and deploy internal resources that amount to a kind of 'virtual reality generator' that models the distal elements and their typical modes of interaction (simplistically, if it generates 'car' and 'sudden braking' it might also generate 'smoke from tires'). An agent perceives when the virtual reality generator can use its resources to capture (match, cancel out) the structure of the incoming signal." | |
| "Perceptual content, as delivered by such a process of active self-prediction, is inherently organized and outward-looking [...] it reveals ‒ and cannot belp but reveal ‒ a structured [...] external world ... the world thus revealed is inherently meaningful ... It is an external arena populated not by proximal stimulations but by distal, causally interacting items and forces whose joint action best explains the current suite of sensory stimulation." | |
|
Clark presents another example of the two competing models of perception this time concerning speech recognition (quoting p.936 of Poeppel & Monahan):
"Representations constructed at earlier stages of processing feed immediately higher levels in a feedforward manner...this process proceeds incrementally until access to a ''lexical conceptual'' representation has been achieved. In speech recognition...this involves a conversion from acoustic features onto phonetic representations, phonetic representations onto phonological representations, and finally access of the lexical item based on its phonological structure. David Poeppel and Philip J. Monahan “Feedforward and feedback in speech perception: Revisiting analysis by synthesis”, Language and Cognitive Processes 26:7, (2011): 935-95. |
|
| "Perception [...] is a matter of the brain using stored knowledge to predict, in a progressively more refined manner, the patterns of multi-layer neuronal response elicited by the current sensory stimulation." | |
|
Clark presents two alternate models of perception:
"What happens when, after a brief chat with a colleague, I re-enter my office and visually perceive the hot, steaming, red cup of coffee that I left waiting on my desk? One possibility is that my brain receives a swathe of visual signals (imagine, for simplicity, an array of activated pixels) that specify a number of elementary features such as lines, edges, and color patches. Those elementary features are then progressively accumulated and (where appropriate) bound together, yielding shapes and specifying relations. At some point, these complex shapes and relations activate bodies of stored knowledge, turning the flow of sensation into world-revealing perception: the seeing of coffee, steam, and cup, with the steaming bound to the coffee, the color red to the cup, and so on. [...] As I re-enter my office my brain already commands a complex set of coffee-involving expectations. Glancing at my desk sets off a chain of visual processing in which current bottom-up signals are met by a stream of downwards predictions concerning the anticipated states of various neuronal groups along the appropriate visual pathway. In essence, a multi-layer downwards cascade is attempting to "guess" the present states of all the key neuronal populations responding to the present state of the visual world. There ensues a rapid exchange (a dance between multiple top-down and bottom-up signals) in which incorrect guesses yield error signals which propagate forward, and are used to extract better guesses. When top-down guessing adequately accounts for the incoming signal, the visual scene is perceived. As this process unfolds, top-down processing is trying to generate the incoming sensory signal for itself. When and only when this succeeds, and a match is established, do we get to experience (veridically or otherwise) a meaningful visual scene."
|
|
| "Perception [...] is the successful prediction of the current sensory signal using stored knowledge about the world. [The model] explains why perception, although carried out by the brain, cannot help but reach out to a distal world; it shows why that 'reaching out' reveals a world that is already structured" | |
| Cross, I. (2005). Music and meaning, ambiguity and emotion. In D. Miell, R. MacDonald & D. J. Hargreaves (Eds.), Musical Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 29/11/2021, 15:08 | |
| Grimshaw, M. (2015). A brief argument for, and summary of, the concept of sonic virtuality. Danish Musicology Online - Special Issue on Sound and Music Production, 81–98. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 06/08/2025, 11:32 | |
| Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. N. (2024). Ambiguity and vagueness in video game sound. In W. Gibbons & M. Grimshaw-Aagaard (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Video Game Music and Sound. (pp. 271–286). New York: Oxford University Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 10/03/2024, 09:38 | |
| Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. N. (2019). The necessity of vagueness and ambiguity to the imagining of sound. In M. Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. Walther-Hansen & M. Knakkergaard (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sound and Imagination. Vol. 1, (pp. 105–113). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 06/02/2023, 12:42 | |
| Hammershøi, D. September 2, 2015. The ANSI definition of sound. [Email] |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 07/12/2015, 07:11 | |
| I have made the response a private comment . . . | |
| Klausen, H. B. (2021). The ambiguity of technology in ASMR experiences: Four types of intimacies and struggles in the user comments on YouTube. Nordicom Review, 42(s4), 124–136. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 16/11/2021, 08:05 | |
| "3D binaural sound (a technique designed to elicit three-dimensional tactile sounds)" | |
|
"And how can technology be seen as ambiguous in this regard? On the one hand, as noted previously, (mediated) intimacy is encouraged by using techniques such as binaural sonic recording and visual close-ups as well as role-play narratives that remind users of real-life experiences, which are usually associated with physical touch. On the other hand, one could argue that no matter how parahaptic the ASMR experience might feel, there is no way to escape the physical distance and temporal displacement involved in the situation."
|
|
| Knakkergaard, M. (2016). Unsound sound: On the ontology of sound in the digital age. Leonardo Music Journal, 26, 64–67. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 01/11/2017, 06:44 | |
| "The assembly is manifested in enframing form, but is it the real as standing reserve the enframing uncovers? Hardly, as the possible "un-covering" seems petrified in the metaphorical tables that define and delimit actions in the digital domain." | |
| Using Heidegger, he describes the uncovering of nature made possible by technology, a process driven by humans: the uncovering is ordered and, in its ordering, "is co-shaping our concept and understanding of what is uncovered and ordered [there is a ] formatting that the exercise of any technique applies to what is uncovered and made available." | |
| "The digital bit is not in the world in the true sense [they] are organized in arrays that consist solely of the simplest possible difference: something or nothing." | |
| Talking of digital 'sound', the "digital material", comparing it to natural sound that is formed by the laws of physics: "for what is this otherworldly form in which the [digital] material occurs, that makes it possible to readily evade the laws of physics . . .?" | |
| Liu, C. 2011 The linguistic analysis of sound ambiguity and meaning ambiguity. Paper presented at The Third International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, Washington, USA. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 24/11/2014, 14:03 | |
| Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). "Real" presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 540–550. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 27/02/2022, 18:21 | |
|
|
| In combining ecological perception with cultural psychology, the authors explain the resolution of everyday ambiguity: "Culture is the device that human societies use to reduce the ambiguity intrinsic to everyday situations: the space in which actors' interests and environmental affordances meet is defined and shaped by the mediation exerted by artifacts [...] Ambiguity of everyday situations does not disappear, but it is made tractable by the presence of the cultural tools and by the social negotiations of the meaning of situations that these tools make possible. This can happen to the extent to which an (at least partially) shared frame of reference exists among the participants." | |
|
Disputing Schloerb's (1995) "definition of objective presence as success in completing a task" the authors point out that it is possible to be present in an environment attempting to repair an engine but being unable to fix it. (Perhaps lacking the knowledge or tools to do so.) |
|
| Reeves, C. (2005). "i knew there was something wrong with that paper": Scientific rhetorical styles and scientific misunderstandings. Technical Communications Quarterly, 14(3), 267–275. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 15/01/2022, 08:35 | |
| Sachs, A. (Director). 1978, June. The revenge. United Kingdom: BBC Radio 3. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 29/11/2021, 10:30 | |
| Sennett, A. (2011-2021). Ambiguity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 18/11/2021, 11:09 | |
| Shakespeare, W. (1610-1611). The tempest. [Drama]. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 18/01/2016, 15:52 | |
|
"
Be not afeard. The isle is full of noises, |
|
| Sorensen, R. (1997-2018). Vagueness. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 18/11/2021, 10:56 | |
"Every natural language is both vague and ambiguous. However, both features seem eliminable. Indeed, both are eliminated in miniature languages such as checkers notation, computer programming languages, and mathematical descriptions. Moreover, it seems that both vagueness and ambiguity ought to be minimized. ‘Vague’ and ‘ambiguous’ are pejorative terms. And they deserve their bad reputations. Think of all the automotive misery that has been prefaced by
Driver: Do I turn left? English can be lethal. Philosophers have long motivated appeals for an ideal language by pointing out how ambiguity creates the menace of equivocation: No child should work. Happily, we know how to criticize and correct all equivocations. Indeed, every natural language is self-disambiguating in the sense that each has all the resources needed to uniquely specify any reading one desires. Ambiguity is often the cause but rarely the object of philosophical rumination." |
|
| "Vagueness is standardly defined as the possession of borderline cases. For example, ‘tall’ is vague because a man who is 1.8 meters in height is neither clearly tall nor clearly non-tall. No amount of conceptual analysis or empirical investigation can settle whether a 1.8 meter man is tall. Borderline cases are inquiry resistant. . . . Inquiry resistance typically recurses. For, in addition to the unclarity of the borderline case, there is normally unclarity as to where the unclarity begins. . . . Consequently, ‘borderline case’ has borderline cases. This higher order vagueness seems to show that ‘vague’ is vague." |