Re: pesky cultural factors in perception of environmental sounds (Brian Gygi )

Subject: Re: pesky cultural factors in perception of environmental sounds From: Brian Gygi <bgygi@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:46:02 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> ----=_vm_0011_W78659187_5664_1274208362 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Milena, In my work I have not really looked at cultural factors, since the subject = population I have used tends to be rather homogenous. I have found differen= ces between elderly and young listeners in terms of their preferences for c= ertain sounds, e.g., the young tended to think of a jet sound as a prototyp= ical airplane sound whereas the elderly preferred the sound of a prop airpl= ane, which may count as an "enculturation difference" if not a purely cultu= ral one. Valeriy and I have also looked at the effects of context on perception of e= nvironmental sounds, and how the expectations afforded by a situation affec= t identifiability of congruent or incongruent (short conclusion: under cert= ain listening conditions, incongruent sounds are more readily perceived). T= his reflects, I believe, the tendency we have to group expected sounds into= a single background, which is of course part of our cultural upbringing. Gygi, B. & Shafiro, V The Incongruency Advantage for Environmental SoundsPresented in Natural Aud= itory Scenes This piece is in press at the Journal of Experiemental Psychology: Human Pe= rception and Performance - hopefully not in the queue for too long Brian Gygi, Ph.D. Speech and Hearing Research Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System 150 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 372-2000 x5653 -----Original Message----- From: Milena Droumeva [mailto:mvdroume@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:30 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds Dear all, rather than having some hard evidence to offer, I see this important discus= sion as a way to keep the conversation going and wanted to just express an = opinion on the definition of "environmental sounds" and other confounding f= actors about the perception of environmental sounds that I believe defy a b= it direct comparisons of basic human differences such as sex, even age, etc. My familiarity and work with environmental sounds comes from some years of = work as a sound designer and auditory display designer where I've taken "en= vironmental sounds" and used them as basis for designing informational disp= lays, as well as continuous feedback. I also have a background in acoustic = ecology of the R.M. Schafer kind (if any of you are familiar) I have to admit I am surprised to learn that in the psychology area there i= s an established definition of environmental sounds, given - and here is my= "opinion" point - the highly culturally defined and specific nature of env= ironmental sound perception. The example of baby crying is just too easy to= pick on, but I will anyway - it could be argued that this is a highly part= icular sound, laden with cultural meaning and habituation. Before it can be= reduced to sex differences, must we not recognize that not only parents vs= . non-parents would naturally have an elevated sensitivity to it, as it is = meaningful, but also women, even non-parents - get socialized in almost eve= ry culture - to think of themselves as potential mothers, and thus might, a= gain, be more sensitive to a sound of baby crying. To me, this does not imp= ly biology and primary psychology (that is, sex differences in perception) = - it implies cultural habituation. This can be said for many, seemingly "innocent" and everyday/familiar envir= onmental sounds - and I am curios, based on this discussion - are any of th= ese other confounding factors (pesky cultural ones) being taken into accoun= t in any way in the psychoacoustic field? Further - is any difference being made in the definition of environmental s= ounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and digital so= und? Thank you for entertaining my concerns - I just think this is a really impo= rtant discussion to have here! Milena On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Brian Gygi <bgygi@xxxxxxxx> wrote: David, Although no formal body has ruled on the topic, in the past several years t= he term "environmental sounds" has acquired a relatively stable definition = - namely familiar, naturally occurring sounds that refer to physical source= s in the environment. There is of course some ambiguity regarding precisely= what fits into this category, i.e., do musical instruments count, whose pr= imary function is acoustic conveyance of aesthetic attributes rather than s= ound source specification? In any case,tThis is the definition I and others= have taken in our work and what I assume Joanna meant. If not I hope she w= ill let us know. Brian Gygi, Ph.D. Speech and Hearing Research Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System 150 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 372-2000 x5653 -----Original Message----- From: David Mountain [mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 08:06 PM To:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds I think that before we can address this question, we need to define what we= mean by "environmental sounds." On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, valeriy shafiro <firosha@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear Joanna, As far as I know across the studies of environmental sound perception in the last 20-30 years none was designed specifically to examine male/female differences. Results from studies that looked at identification of large collections of different types of environmental sounds also did not find any differences, although in a recent study on environmental sound identification within contextually congruent and incongruent auditory scenes, Brian Gygi and I, saw an overall identification difference between males and females, but it was small (3-4 points) and non significant. It is conceivable that given a large variety of familiar environmental sounds tested in these studies, whatever differences there may be between males and females are obscured, and that for a set of specific sounds there are may be sex differeces in behavioral of physiologic measures (e.g. baby crying). While not specifically targeting environmental sounds, John Neuhoff did find some interesting sex differences in the perception of looming motion, which might relevant to your question. Best regards, Valeriy On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Joanna Kantor-Martynuska <joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Auditory List, > > I would very much appreciate your suggestions about the literature regard= ing > sex differences in perception of environmental sounds. I=92m intrested in > physiological indices of auditory predispositions for perception of > different sounds we encounter in our natural environment. > > Looking forward to any interesting suggestions or links. > > Best, > Joanna Kantor -- David C. Mountain, Ph.D. Professor of Biomedical Engineering Boston University 44 Cummington St. Boston, MA 02215 Email: dcm@xxxxxxxx Website: http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory-biophysics/ Phone: (617) 353-4343 FAX: (617) 353-6766 Office: ERB 413 ----=_vm_0011_W78659187_5664_1274208362 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <html><div><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2"><br>Milena,<br><br>In my work = I have not really looked at cultural factors, since the subject population = I have used tends to be rather homogenous.  I have found differences b= etween elderly and young listeners in terms of their preferences for certai= n sounds, e.g., the young tended to think of a jet sound as a prototypical = airplane sound whereas the elderly preferred the sound of a prop airplane, = which may count as an "enculturation difference" if not a purely cultural o= ne.<br><br>Valeriy and I have also looked at the effects of context on perc= eption of environmental sounds, and how the expectations afforded by a situ= ation affect identifiability of congruent or incongruent (short conclusion:=   under certain listening conditions, incongruent sounds are more read= ily perceived).  This reflects, I believe, the tendency we have to gro= up expected sounds into a single background, which is of course part of our= cultural upbringing.<br><br>Gygi, B. & Shafiro, V<br></font><meta http= -equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta name= =3D"ProgId" content=3D"Word.Document"><meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"M= icrosoft Word 12"><meta name=3D"Originator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12"><= !-- <link href=3D"file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CVHAMAC%7E3%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%= 5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=3D"File-List"> --><style>  </style> <p class=3D"MsoTitle" style=3D"margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in= ; line-height: 200%;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; fo= nt-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-weight: norm= al;" lang=3D"EN-GB">The Incongruency Advantage for Environmental Sounds Presented in Natural Auditory Scenes<o:p></o:p></span></p> <br><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2">This piece is in press at the Journal= of Experiemental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance - hopefully = not in the queue for too long<br> </font></div> Brian Gygi, Ph.D. <br> Speech and Hearing Research <br> Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System <br> 150 Muir Road <br> Martinez, CA 94553 <br> (925) 372-2000 x5653<div><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2" color=3D"#0000ff= "></font> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5= px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;"><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2">= -----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b> Milena Droumeva [mailto:mvdroume= @xxxxxxxx<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:30 AM<br><b>To:</b> AUDIT= ORY@xxxxxxxx<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: sex differences in perception of= environmental sounds<br><br></font>Dear all, <div><br></div><div>rath= er than having some hard evidence to offer, I see this important discussion= as a way to keep the conversation going and wanted to just express an opin= ion on the definition of "environmental sounds" and other confounding facto= rs about the perception of environmental sounds that I believe defy a bit d= irect comparisons of basic human differences such as sex, even age, etc.&nb= sp;</div> <div><br></div><div>My familiarity and work with environmental sounds comes= from some years of work as a sound designer and auditory display designer = where I've taken "environmental sounds" and used them as basis for designin= g informational displays, as well as continuous feedback. I also have a bac= kground in acoustic ecology of the R.M. Schafer kind (if any of you are fam= iliar)</div> <div><br></div><div>I have to admit I am surprised to learn that in the psy= chology area there is an established definition of environmental sounds, gi= ven - and here is my "opinion" point - the highly culturally defined and sp= ecific nature of environmental sound perception. The example of baby crying= is just too easy to pick on, but I will anyway - it could be argued that t= his is a highly particular sound, laden with cultural meaning and habituati= on. Before it can be reduced to sex differences, must we not recognize that= not only parents vs. non-parents would naturally have an elevated sensitiv= ity to it, as it is meaningful, but also women, even non-parents - get soci= alized in almost every culture - to think of themselves as potential mother= s, and thus might, again, be more sensitive to a sound of baby crying. To m= e, this does not imply biology and primary psychology (that is, sex differe= nces in perception) - it implies cultural habituation. </div> <div><br></div><div>This can be said for many, seemingly "innocent" and eve= ryday/familiar environmental sounds - and I am curios, based on this discus= sion - are any of these other confounding factors (pesky cultural ones) bei= ng taken into account in any way in the psychoacoustic field?</div> <div><br></div><div>Further - is any difference being made in the definitio= n of environmental sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroaco= ustic and digital sound?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for entertainin= g my concerns - I just think this is a really important discussion to have = here!</div> <div><br></div><div>Milena<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17= , 2010 at 11:11 PM, Brian Gygi <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bgyg= i@xxxxxxxx" mce_href=3D"mailto:bgygi@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">bgygi@xxxxxxxx= ire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= "border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padd= ing-left: 1ex;"> <div><span style=3D"font-size: small;"><br></span></div><div><font face=3D"= Verdana" size=3D"2">David,</font></div><div><span style=3D"font-size: small= ;"><br></span></div><div><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2">Although no form= al body has ruled on the topic, in the past several years the term "environ= mental sounds" has acquired a relatively stable definition - namely familia= r, naturally occurring sounds that refer to  physical sources in the e= nvironment.  There is of course some ambiguity regarding precisely wha= t fits into this category, i.e., do musical instruments count, whose primar= y function is acoustic conveyance of aesthetic attributes rather than sound= source specification?  In any case,tThis is the definition I and othe= rs have taken in our work and what I assume Joanna meant.  If not I ho= pe she will let us know.</font></div> <div class=3D"im"><div><span style=3D"font-size: small;"><br></span></div><= div><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2"> </font></div>Brian Gygi, Ph.D.<= br>Speech and Hearing Research<br>Veterans Affairs Northern California Heal= th Care System<br> 150 Muir Road<br>Martinez, CA 94553<br>(925) 372-2000 x5653<div><font face= =3D"Verdana" size=3D"2" color=3D"#0000ff"></font> </div></div><blockqu= ote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; marg= in-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;"> <font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"><div class=3D"im">-----Original Message---= --<br><b>From:</b> David Mountain [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx" mce= _href=3D"mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">dcm@xxxxxxxx</a>]<br><b>Sent:</= b> Monday, May 17, 2010 08:06 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ISTS.MCGILL.CA" mce_href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_bla= nk">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> </div><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><b>Subject:</b> Re: sex differences= in perception of environmental sounds<br><br></div></div></font><div><div>= </div><div class=3D"h5">I think that before we can address this question, w= e need to define what we mean by "environmental sounds."<br> <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, valeriy sh= afiro <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:firosha@xxxxxxxx" mce_href= =3D"mailto:firosha@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">firosha@xxxxxxxx</a>></= span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px= solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Dear Joanna,<br><br>As far as I know across the studies of environmental so= und perception<br>in the last 20-30 years none was designed specifically to= examine<br>male/female differences.  Results from studies that looked= at<br> identification of large collections of different types of<br>environmental = sounds also did not find any differences, although in a<br>recent study on = environmental sound identification within contextually<br>congruent and inc= ongruent auditory scenes, Brian Gygi and I, saw an<br> overall identification difference between males and females, but it<br>was = small (3-4 points) and non significant.  It is conceivable that<br>giv= en a large variety of familiar environmental sounds tested in these<br>stud= ies, whatever differences there may be between males and females<br> are obscured, and that for a set of specific sounds there are may be<br>sex= differeces in behavioral of physiologic measures (e.g. baby<br>crying). &n= bsp;While not specifically targeting environmental sounds, John<br>Neuhoff = did find some interesting sex differences in the perception of<br> looming motion, which might relevant to your question.<br><br>Best regards,= <br><br>Valeriy<br><br>On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Joanna Kantor-Marty= nuska<br><<a href=3D"mailto:joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx" mce_href=3D"mailt= o:joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx</a= >> wrote:<br> > Dear Auditory List,<br>><br>> I would very much appreciate your = suggestions about the literature regarding<br>> sex differences in perce= ption of environmental sounds. I=92m intrested in<br>> physiological ind= ices of auditory predispositions for perception of<br> > different sounds we encounter in our natural environment.<br>><br>&= gt; Looking forward to any interesting suggestions or links.<br>><br>&gt= ; Best,<br>> Joanna Kantor<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"> <br>-- <br><br>David C. Mountain, Ph.D.<br>Professor of Biomedical Engineer= ing<br><br>Boston University<br>44 Cummington St.<br>Boston, MA 02215<br><b= r>Email:   <a href=3D"mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx" mce_href=3D"mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx= " target=3D"_blank">dcm@xxxxxxxx</a><br> Website: <a href=3D"http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory-bi= ophysics/" mce_href=3D"http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory= -biophysics/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories= /auditory-biophysics/</a><br>Phone:   (617) 353-4343<br>FAX:   &n= bsp; (617) 353-6766<br> Office:  ERB 413<br><br></div></div></blockquote> </blockquote></div><br></div> </blockquote></html> ----=_vm_0011_W78659187_5664_1274208362--

This message came from the mail archive
/home/empire6/dpwe/public_html/postings/2010/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University