Re: Intelligibility of reversed speech, Why? (Jont Allen )

Subject: Re: Intelligibility of reversed speech, Why?
From:    Jont Allen  <jba(at)RESEARCH.ATT.COM>
Date:    Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:21:07 -0500

Yadong, Well we all have our pet theories, but nobody can prove their favorite. The other question is "Why should this processing destroy intelligibility?" Isn't the ear supposed to be phase deaf? Isn't this consistent with this phase deafness? (this comment is intended to be with tongue in cheek). I think it boils down to what are the speech cues. The experiment of Bob Shannon (the noise driven channel vocoder experiment) convinced a lot of people these speech cues are very primitive. Jont Yadong Wang wrote: > Dear Auditory list, > > Saberi & Perrott ("Cognitive restoration of reversed speech," Nature 398: > 760, 1999) > recently showed that local time reversal does not destroy intelligibility, > if the > time reversal window is brief. > > (Please go to for the > details.) > > Why is that? > > Thanks. > > -Yadong Toward a Man-made Brain > ___________________________________________ > 401-874-5392 (O) Leave Msg Please... > 401-789-7742 (H) > > Dept of Electrical & Computer Engineering > HTTP HomePage -- Jont B. Allen AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory, E161 180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971 973/360-8545voice, x7111fax,

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University