Gregory, R.L., (1996) "Is your green as green as mine?" in The Sunday Times, Science section 8th September 1996
Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology University of Derby, UK tel: 01332 593155 e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Greene Sent: 04 June 2012 03:02 To: Eric Carmichel; Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?) Could I point out that in fact one does not know what auditory reality is like for other people whether or not they are hearing impaired? One supposes it is similar. And structurally it is similar--people tend to hear sound in the same locations under given circumstances. But literal sensation is entirely unknowable-- do you see the same color when you look at green grass that I do? This is essentially unknowable. One supposes so for convenience. But there is no way to know because pure sensation cannot be communicated. This is something that will not change. More and more evidence can be adduced to the effect that the brain processes are similar. But there cannot be proof that the experience is the same-- this is unverifiable from the scientific viewpoint and always will be(in anything like our present scientific world anyway). Thought and sensation transfer in the literal sense is not around. Of course there is always that movie("Strange Days") Maybe someday. But right now, no one can know what anyone else experiences except in some structural sense. Robert On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Eric Carmichel wrote: > Greetings All, > I continue to learn a lot from this site (and someday hope to have something > to give back). For now, however, I will briefly comment on posts by > Umashankar Mantravadi, Augustine Leudar, and Entienne. > > Entienne wrote the following [abridged]: **The argument essentially says that > for something to appear real it has to fit people's *pre-conception* of what > is real, rather than fit what actually is real. In other words, throw out > veridicality (coincidence with reality); instead, try to satisfy people's > belief of reality. This is another argument for questioning the extent to > which physical modeling has the capacity to create illusions of reality in > sound...** > > Entienne made me consider further something of great importance re my CI > research. Briefly, we really don?t know what auditory perception is like for > hearing-impaired listeners (remembering that there?s a lot more to > sensorineural hearing loss than threshold elevation). For example, does the > Haas effect work for them? Why is noise-source segregation so difficult? Does > breaking apart an auditory scene create greater dysfunction, or can they put > the pieces back together to give the illusion of a unified sound source (as > with the cello example)? How does multi-band compression sound for them, etc? > We would most certainly like to know how altering a physical stimulus > improves their belief of reality (thus improving their ability to communicate > or enjoy music)? But how do we measure the perception of cochlear implant and > hearing aid users other than providing *physically accurate, real-world* > stimuli? Side note: Thanks for the reference to H. Wallach > (1940). > > Re Augustine?s post: Thanks for suggesting Gary Kendall?s paper. While it > doesn?t provide a *complete* explanation (who can?), it is a good read. I > proposed a somewhat similar study while a grad student, but the stimuli would > have included speech, dynamical sounds (such as breaking glass or a bouncing > ball), and unfamiliar sounds. The constituent components of the unfamiliar > sounds would be spatially separated but have identical start times. We could > then ask whether it?s familiarity (as with a cello), arrival times, or other > variables that unify the separate sounds into a common source. > > Umashankar Mantravadi wrote the following: *As a location sound mixer, I > exploited the visual reinforcement of sound in many situations. If you are > recording half a dozen people speaking, and the camera focuses on one - > provided the sound is in synch - the person in picture will sound louder, > nearer the mic, than the others. It is a surprisingly strong effect, and one > side benefit is you can check for synch very quickly using it.* > > Many thanks for sharing this experience. I am currently creating AV stimuli > (using a PowerPoint presentation as the metronome/teleprompter). While there > is nothing new or novel about incorporating video, I am unaware of any > investigations using cochlear implant patients? in a surround of uncorrelated > background noise combined with a video of the talker(s). One could also study > the effects of simulated cochlear implant hearing (using normal-hearing > subjects) with visual cues in a *natural* environment. > > It has been known for some time that lipreading is useful for comprehending > speech presented in a background of noise. For example, Sumby & Pollack > (1954) showed that visual cues could aid speech comprehension to the same > degree as a 15 dB improvement in SNR. Sounds with acoustic features that are > easily masked by white noise (for example, the voiceless consonants /k/ and > /p/) are easy to discriminate visually. > > There is a plethora of literature surrounding the benefits of lipreading. It > is entirely possible that visual cues can affect more than just speech > comprehension. A study showing the reduction of stress when a listener is > aided by lipreading could be interesting: It is possible that visual cues, > regardless of speech comprehension advantages, could reduce listener stress > in a difficult listening environment. Capturing subtleties, such as talker > voice level as a function of background noise level, could make video and > audio stimuli more realistic. Although we might not be sensitive to these > subtleties when sufficient information is available to us (us = > normal-hearing listeners), hearing-impaired individuals might make use of > visual cues in ways that have not been explored. Systematic reduction or > elimination of available information can be accomplished when the stimulus > contains all of the *essential* information in the environment. > > I am exploring Ambisonics (along with video) as method of capturing the > essential information. At worst, I have a great-sounding system for listening > to others? musical recordings. Thanks to everyone for the recordings of crowd > sounds, music, software, and for sharing your wisdom. > Best regards, > Eric > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120602/bb7c646d/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _____________________________________________________________________ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk. _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
