[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: environmental non-noises

This idea does make sense, and there have been several studies on it. Two examples:

1. Cummings et. al, (2006). Auditory semantic networks for words and natural sounds, Brain Research, 1115, 92-107.

2. Lebrun et al. (2001). An ERD mapping study of the neurocognitive processes involved in the perceptual and semantic analysis of environmental sounds and words. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 235-248.

In general the process they used didn't distort meaningful sounds, but measure the meaningfullness of the sounds, and then pick sounds that are on opposite ends of the scaleing results.



Date:    Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:51:53 +0100
From:    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Honbolyg=F3_Ferenc?= <hf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: environmental non-noises

Dear List members,

We are currently working on an experiment about the semantical=20
processing of environmental noises. We are trying to do a similar task=20
as the lexical decision task with words and nonwords, but with=20
environmental noises and "non-noises". The problem is that we have a=20
hard time creating non-noises which are quite environmental noise-like,=20
but are not recognizable. We tried almost every distortion methods used=20
in the literature (reversing, spectrally-rotating, scrambling the parts)=20
but the sounds are always pretty much recognizable by most people.
Does anyone have any idea on how to create such non-recognizable=20
non-noises based on existing environmental noises? Or is this idea just=20
not feasible, because people will always think that what they heard is=20
something real?
Ferenc Honbolyg=F3

Ferenc Honbolyg=F3

Research Institute for Psychology, HAS
Department of Psychophysiology
Research Group of Developmental Psychophysiology
H-1394 Budapest, P.O.Box 398.

Web: http://humlab.cogpsyphy.hu/
E-mail: hf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel:     +361 354-2390
Fax:    +361 354-2416