Another point that is interesting, in considering the cognitive dimension of spatial perception, is that some processes involve the identification of a sounding object, and some do not.
The recognition of an over-simplified mono reverb algorithm, as an "Icon" of the sound of a large space, requires no identification of a sounding object. In fact, the sounding object can be totally abstract and not even have any pretence to represent a real physical sounding object (so reverbs are kind to electronic music which uses many abstract sounds). Whispers, mosquitoes, hair clippers create a perception of proximity only through knowledge of the typical circumstances these objects are heard in ... so their identification is critical (and these are Peircian Indices) The third Peircian mechanism is "Symbols" ... in which there is no association between sign and perception other than an agreed one. In spatial audio terms, an example is language. In the binaural demos, the use of a voice saying "over here on the right there is a dog barking" ...is an example of a Peircian symbol of space. Peirce calls all of these things "signs". What is the relative importance of the presence of "signs of space" compared to "realistically projected stimuli"? ... no idea. But the signs are there and active. Etienne On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Martin Leese < martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > Augustine Leudar wrote: > ... > > The sounds and settings have to > > be convincing enough, believable enough, for cognitive effects to work - > > then you can get away with all sorts of acoustic inaccuracies - thats > why I > > think so many sound installations in galleries leave me cold - you can > see > > all the nuts and bolts. > > The best example I can think of is I left a microphone going in the rain > > forest once - mosquitoes would land on the microphone. The recordings > > exhibited the really annoying buzzing noise that mosquitoes make before > > they land on your face (a study showed this is actually to deliberatly to > > irritate you, raise your blood pressure, and cause the blood to be closer > > to the surface of the skin !). Even though these recordings were played > > over a PA speaker - because this speaker was hidden in a rainforest > > setting, even though the sound was much louder than a real mosquito - it > > still caught me by surprise a couple of times and had me brushing my > face. > > Still to use cognitive effects and have accurate spatial effects would be > > the ideal. > > I wasn't aware that a mosquito's buzzing was > anything other than accidental. Below, is some > conjecture. > > Mosquitoes don't just feed on humans, but > on many warm blooded creatures. It is > reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the > buzzing is "designed" to irritate a large number > of species. This means that the buzzing > probably triggers a primitive response in > humans (allocortex, as opposed to neocortex), > and it is this that makes it so difficult to ignore. > > So, finally, for powerful cognitive effects, aim > to use sounds that trigger a primitive response. > > Regards, > Martin > -- > Martin J Leese > E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org > Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > -- http://etiennedeleflie.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130228/1cc5b5ed/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
