Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References

Acoustic specification of object properties

Profile image of Jeffrey WagmanJeffrey Wagman

2005, Moving image theory: …

Abstract

A general statement of the ecological approach to perception is that a particular animalenvironment relation or event lawfully structures energy distributions that specify the event that generated them. A given event can, of course, structure varied energy media simultaneously, but how richly? Precise information about geometric properties-the sizes and shapes of objects-has long been assumed to be the province of visual perception. But the foregoing ecological law statement suggests that this limitation is more tradition than necessity. Since an object's physical parameters and its spatial dimensions determine the acoustic structure it generates when mechanically disturbed, such structure is potentially informative about object properties. We describe research showing that the perception of object properties by sound alone is reliable, surprisingly accurate, and constrained by dynamical law.

Related papers

Hearing Where Things Are
Don Oxtoby

2013

One of the central questions in the philosophy of sounds and hearing is the question of space: what spaces or locations, if any, do sound perceptions make one aware of? When I hear a sound, do I perceive the direction of the sound? The direction (or distance) of the sound's source? The boundaries or dimensions of the space the sound is produced in, or of the source itself? And if sound perceptions do make one aware of space, then with what level of determinacy? In the first chapter of this essay, I describe my approach to sounds and hearing, and state what I take to be the fundamental challenges for any view of sound perception. For one, I take the everyday experience of sounds to be one of the most significant obstacles to an account of sound perception, and one that has scarcely been recognized as such. In everyday hearing, we are not the least bit concerned with sounds. We use sounds to gather information about the behaviour of their sources, which are typically the object of our attention whenever we perceive a sound. If I hear the sound of a car honking or a person speaking, I immediately pay attention to the car and how I can avoid it, or to the person and the meaning they intend to communicate. In everyday hearing, our awareness of sounds is similar to our awareness of windowpanes while watching the goings on outside. Consequently, the everyday experience of sounds is problematic as a model of sound perception. In the second and third chapters, I discuss the two most popular views of sound perception in the philosophical literature, the remote view and the non-spatial view. Since these views have received much attention in the literature, I spend more time raising objections to them in chapter III than describing them in chapter II. One of the principle aims of this essay is to make the case that both of these views are mistaken, despite the valuable insights contained in each. In the fourth and fifth chapters, I discuss the medial view. While the idea that sounds are sound waves located in a medium is the predominant view of sounds themselves in auditory science and the history of philosophy, the view that we hear sounds to be located in the medium has received little attention. Some objections to the medial view have been raised, which I address in chapter V, but very little has been said to defend or even describe the medial view. Part of the motivation for this essay is that I am struck by the fact that the medial view, which would seem to follow naturally from auditory science and the history of philosophy, has been so little discussed. Consequently, the bulk of this essay is dedicated to a description and defence of the medial view.

View PDFchevron_right
Sound Objects and Spatial Morphologies
Ulf A. S. Holbrook

Organised Sound

One of Pierre Schaeffer’s achievements in his musical research was his proposal of the sound object as a basic unit of musical experience and his insistence on listening as a main focus of research. Out of this research grew a radical new music theory of sound-based composition. This article will draw on this extensive research to explore the spaces where this music is heard and present the claim that the space in which music is experienced is as much a part of the music as the timbral material itself. The key question here is the changes made to timbral material through acousmatic spatial listening and the subjective analysis affordance of the listeners’ placement and perspective. These consequences are studied from a phenomenological and psychoacoustic perspective and it is suggested that Schaeffer’s research on timbral and musical concepts can be extended to include spatial features.

View PDFchevron_right
perception of sounds
aseel kmahmood
View PDFchevron_right
Kubovy, M. & Van Valkenburg, D. (2001). Auditory and visual objects. Cognition. 80(1–2):97–126
Michael Kubovy

Notions of objecthood have traditionally been cast in visuocentric terminology. As a result, theories of auditory and cross-modal perception have focused more on the differences between modalities than on the similarities. In this paper we re-examine the concept of an object in a way that overcomes the limitations of the traditional perspective. We propose a new, cross-modal conception of objecthood which focuses on the similarities between modalities instead of the differences. Further, we propose that the auditory system might consist of two parallel streams of processing (the`what' and`where' subsystems) in a manner analogous to current conceptions of the visual system. We suggest that the`what' subsystems in each modality are concerned with objecthood. Finally, we present evidence for ± and elaborate on ± the hypothesis that the auditory`where' subsystem is in the service of the visual-motor where' subsystem. q

View PDFchevron_right
The Body-Image Theory of Sound: An Ecological Approach to Speech and Music
Akpan Essien

The definition of sound in physics as vibrations in an elastic medium establishes a link between the sound source and the organism. Thus, it satisfies an essential psychophysical prerequisite for a theory of perception. However, over the past 170 years since Ohm's law (1843), and some 137 years since Helmholtz's resonance theory (1877), psychoacoustic procedures founded on air vibration have shrouded music and speech in mystery. Ecological theories have fallen short, not only of Gestalt invariance, but also of the link between the distal object and the organism. This paper approaches auditory analysis from the standpoint of sound production. It argues that although air vibration produces sound, sound is not air vibration; and that exploitation of features of air vibration can hardly (if ever) lead to accurate understanding of the principle of the auditory mechanism in speech or music perception. Evidence is provided in support of the definition of sound as the vibratory imag...

View PDFchevron_right
Audio-Visual Objects
Michael Kubovy, Michael Schutz

In this paper we offer a theory of cross-modal objects. To begin, we discuss two kinds of linkages between vision and audition. The first is a duality. The the visual system detects and identifies surfaces; the auditory system detects and identifies sources. Surfaces are illuminated by sources of light; sound is reflected off surfaces. However, the visual system discounts sources and the auditory system discounts surfaces. These and similar considerations lead to the Theory of Indispensable Attributes that states the conditions for the formation of gestalts in the two modalities. The second linkage involves the formation of audiovisual objects, integrated cross-modal experiences. We describe research that reveals the role of cross-modal causality in the formation of such objects. These experiments use the canonical example of a causal link between vision and audition: a visible impact that causes a percussive sound.

View PDFchevron_right
Di Bona, E. 2019. Why Space Matters to an Understanding of Sound (penultimate version)
Elvira Di Bona

in Spatial Senses Philosophy of Perception in an Age of Science, 1st Edition Edited by Tony Cheng, Ophelia Deroy, Charles Spence. New York: Routledge, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
What is an auditory object?
Jason Warren

Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Look at That Sound! Visual Aspects of Auditory Perception
Michael Haverkamp

While it usually seems to be self-evident that perception of sound is a simple process, carried out within one sensory space, the existence of color hearing points at the fact that hearing includes visual aspects. In fact, not only during individual synesthetic processes, but even under common perceptual conditions sound refers to multi- sensory attributes. Thus, a multi-sensory design must be based on qualitative references between the senses. As an integral part, knowledge of the visual aspects of auditory perception is essential for creation of sounds which fit into a cross-modal environment. Various mechanisms of processing of stimuli ensure coupling of auditory qualia to multi-sensory perceptual objects. In the reality of daily life, even simple events which are heard include several references to those objects. Speech usually contains semantic and associative attributes as well as various analogies, like cross-sensory features (e.g. brightness, sharpness, volume), spatial dist...

View PDFchevron_right
Perceptual evaluation of sound-producing objects
Roberto Bresin
View PDFchevron_right

References (95)

  1. Anderson, K., Carello, C., & Kunkler-Peck, A. J. (May, 1996). Rotational inertia constrains per- ception of object length by sound. Poster presented at the North American Society for Ecologi- cal Psychology. Hartford, CT.
  2. Bingham, G. P. (1993). Perceiving the size of trees: Forms as information about scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1139-1161.
  3. Bingham, G. P., Rosenblum, L. D., & Schmidt, R. C. (1995). Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- ception and Performance, 21, 1473-1493.
  4. Bootsma, R. J., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (1993). Visual information about time-to-collision between two objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1041-1052.
  5. Cabe, P., & Pittenger, J. B. (2000). Human sensitivity to acoustic information from vessel filling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 313-324.
  6. Carello, C., Anderson, K. L., & Peck, A. (1998). Perception of object length by sound. Psychologi- cal Science, 9, 211-214.
  7. Carello, C., Grosofsky, A., Reichel, F. D., Solomon, H. Y., & Turvey, M. T. (1989). Visually per- ceiving what is reachable. Ecological Psychology, 1, 27-54.
  8. Carello, C., Turvey, M. T., & Kugler, P.N. (1985). The informational support for upright stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 151-152.
  9. Chomsky, C. (1986). Analytic study of the Tadoma method: Language abilities of three deaf-blind subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 332-347.
  10. Clifton, R., Perris, E., & Bullinger, A. (1991). Infants' perception of auditory space. Developmental Psychology, 27, 187-197.
  11. Cutting, J. E. (1986). Perception with an eye for motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Diehl, R., & Walsh, M. (1989). An auditory basis for the stimulus-length effect in the perception of stops and glides. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2154-2164.
  13. Erwin, T. (1995). Prospective acoustic information for object pass by. In B. G. Bardy, R. J. Bootsma, & Y. Guiard (Eds.), Studies in perception and action III (pp. 325-328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C., Schmidt, R. C., & Corey, D. (1994). Haptic and visual perception of an affordance for upright posture. Ecological Psychology, 6, 265-287.
  15. Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (1994). Eigenvalues of the inertia tensor and extero- ception by the "muscular sense." Neuroscience, 60, 551-568.
  16. Fletcher, N. H., & Rossing, T. D. (1991). The physics of musical instruments. New York: Springer- Verlag.
  17. Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist per- spective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3-28.
  18. Fowler, C. A. (1990). Sound-producing sources as object of perception: Rate normalization and nonspeech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1236-1249.
  19. Fowler, C. A. (1991). Auditory perception is not special: We see the world, we feel the world, we hear the world. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 2910-2915.
  20. Fowler, C. A., & Dekle, D. J. (1991). Listening with eye and hand: Cross-modal contributions to speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 816-828.
  21. Freed, D. J. (1990). Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percus- sive events. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 311-322.
  22. Friberg, A., & Sundberg, J. (1999). Does music performance allude to locomotion? A model of fi- Ecological acoustics 27 nal ritardandi derived from measurements of stopping runners. Journal of the Acoustical Soci- ety of America, 105, 1469-1484.
  23. Gaver, W. W. (1988). Everyday listening and auditory icons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
  24. Gaver, W. W. (1993a). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1-29.
  25. Gaver, W. W. (1993b). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Eco- logical Psychology, 5, 285-313.
  26. Gibson, E. J. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5, 69-76.
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1983). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Prospect Heights, IL: Wavelan. (Original work published in 1966)
  28. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gordon, C., & Webb, D. (1996). You can't hear the shape of a drum. American Scientist, 84, 46- 55.
  29. GrandPre, D., & Carello, C. (June, 2000). Perceiving the lengths of nonrigid objects by dynamic touch. Poster presented at the North American Society for Ecological Psychology, Clemson, SC. Guski, R. (1992). Acoustic tau: an easy analog to visual tau? Ecological Psychology, 4, 189-197.
  30. Heft, H. (1993). A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: Distinguishing be- tween perceptual and analytic judgments. Ecological Psychology, 5, 255-271.
  31. Jenkins, J. J. (1985). Acoustic information for places, objects, and events. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change: Proceedings of the first international conference on event perception (pp. 115-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percep- tion & Psychophysics, 14, 201-211
  33. Kac, M. (1966). Can one hear the shape of a drum? Mathematics Monthly, 13, 21-23.
  34. Keller, H. (1903). The story of my life. New York: Doubleday.
  35. Kugler, P.N., Turvey, M. T., Carello, C., & Shaw, R. E. (1985). The physics of controlled colli- sions: A reverie about locomotion. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and Change: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Event Perception (pp. 195-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  36. Kunkler-Peck, A., & Turvey, M. T. (2000). Hearing shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 279-294.
  37. Lakatos, S., McAdams, S., & Caussé, R. (1997). The representation of auditory source characteris- tics: Simple geometric form. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1180-1190.
  38. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to- collision. Perception, 5, 437-459.
  39. Lee, D. N. (1980). Visuo-motor coordination in space-time. In G. Stelmach, & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 281-295). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
  40. Lee, D. N. (1990). Getting around with light or sound. In R. Warren & A. Wertheim, (eds.). Per- ception and control of self-motion (pp. 487-505). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  41. Li, X., Logan, R. J., & Pastore, R. E. (1991). Perception of acoustic source characteristics: Walking sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 3036-3049.
  42. Liberman, A. M. (1982). On finding that speech is special. American Psychologist, 37, 148-167.
  43. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F., Shankweiler, D., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
  44. Liberman, A. M., Ingemann, F., Lisker, L., Delattre, P., & Cooper, F. (1959). Minimal rules for synthesizing speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 1490-1499. Ecological acoustics
  45. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. (1985). The motor theory revised. Cognition, 21, 1-36.
  46. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science, 243, 489- 494.
  47. Lichte, W. H. (1941). Attributes of complex tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 455- 480.
  48. Lutfi, R. A., & Oh, E. (1997). Auditory discrimination of material changes in a struck-clamped bar. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3647-3656.
  49. MacDonald, J. W., & McGurk, H. (1978). Visual influences on speech perception processes. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 24, 253-257.
  50. McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. W. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
  51. Massaro, D. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  52. Massaro, D. (1998). Perceiving talking faces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  53. Michaels, C. F. (1986). An ecological analysis of binocular vision. Psychological Research, 48, 1- 22.
  54. Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. New York: Prentice Hall.
  55. Michaels, C. F., Prindle, S., & Turvey, M. T. (1985). A note on the natural basis of action catego- ries: The catching distance of mantids. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 255-264.
  56. Miller, J., & Liberman, A. M. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 457-465.
  57. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  58. Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  59. Norman, J. F., Todd, J. T., Perotti, V. J., & Tittle, J. S., (1996). The visual perception of three- dimensional length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 173-186.
  60. Perris, E., & Clifton, R. K. (1988). Reaching in the dark toward sound as a measure of auditory lo- calization in infants. Infant Behavior and Development,11, 473-491.
  61. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception-action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129- 154.
  62. Repp, B. H. (1987). The sound of two hands clapping: An exploratory study. Journal of the Acous- tical Society of America, 81, 1100-1110.
  63. Riccio, G. E. (1993). Information in movement variability about the qualitative dynamics of posture and orientation. In K. M. Newell & D. M. Corcos (Eds.) Variability and motor control (pp. 317- 358). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  64. Rosenblum, L. D. (1993). Acoustical information for controlled collisions. In A. Schick (Ed.), Contributions to psychological acoustics (pp. 303-322). Oldenberg, Germany: Bibliotheks.
  65. Rosenblum, L. D., & Saldaña, H. (1996). An audiovisual test of kinematic primitives for visual speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 318-331.
  66. Rosenblum, L. D., & Saldaña, H. (1998). Time-varying information for visual speech perception. In R. Campell, B. Dodd, & D. Burnham (Eds.). Hearing by eye II: Advances in the psychology of speech reading and auditory-visual speech (pp. 61-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  67. Rosenblum, L. D., Carello, C., & Pastore, R. E. (1987). Relative effectiveness of three stimulus variables for locating a moving sound source. Perception, 16, 175-186.
  68. Rosenblum, L. D., Johnson, J., & Saldaña, H. (1996). Point-light facial displays enhance compre- hension of speech in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 1159-1170. Ecological acoustics
  69. Rosenblum, L. D., Wuestefeld, A., & Anderson, K. (1996). Auditory reachability: an affordance approach to the perception of distance. Ecological Psychology, 8, 1-24.
  70. Rosenblum, L. D., Wuestefeld, A., & Saldaña, H. (1993). Auditory looming perception: influences on anticipator judgments. Perception, 22, 1467-1482.
  71. Rossing, T. D., & Fletcher, N. H. (1995). Principles of vibrations and sound. New York: Springer- Verlag.
  72. Russell, M. & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Auditory perception of unimpeded passage. Ecological Psy- chology, 11, 175-188.
  73. Schiff, W., & Oldak, R. (1990). Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 303- 316.
  74. Schubert, E. D. (1975). The role of auditory perception in language processing. In M. Rawson & D. D. Duane (Eds.), Language, perception and reading (pp. 97-130). Baltimore, MD: York.
  75. Shaw, B. K., McGowan, R., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). An acoustic variable specifying time to con- tact. Ecological Psychology, 3, 253-261.
  76. Shockley, K., Grocki, M., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (in press). Heaviness perception implicates an ecological form of the rigid body laws. Experimental Brain Research.
  77. Sidaway, B., McNitt-Gray, J., & Davis, G. (1989). Visual timing of muscle preactivation in prepa- ration for landing. Ecological Psychology, 1, 253-264.
  78. Snyder, W. S., Cook, M. J., Nasset, E. S., Karhausen, L. R., Howells, G. P., & Tipton, I. H. (1974). Report of the task group on reference man. Oxford, England: Pergamon
  79. Stoffregen, T. A., & Pittenger, J. B. (1995). Human echolocation as a basic form of perception and action. Ecological Psychology, 7, 181-216.
  80. Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1985). Perceiving phonetic events. In R. Shaw & W. H. Warren (Eds.), Per- sistence and change: Proceedings of the first international conference on event perception (pp. 139-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  81. Sumby, W. H, & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 212-215.
  82. Summerfield, A. Q. (1987). Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audiovisual speech perception. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.), Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 3-51). London: Erlbaum.
  83. Todd, J. T. (1981). Visual information about moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 795-810.
  84. Tousman, S. A., & Pastore, R. E. (1989). Source characteristics: A study of hand clapping. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Supplement 1, 85, S53.
  85. Tresilian, J. R. (1993). Four questions of time to contact: A critical examination of research on in- terceptive timing. Perception, 22, 653-680.
  86. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173-187.
  87. Turvey, M. T. (1996). Dynamic touch. American Psychologist, 51, 1134-1152.
  88. Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (1995). Dynamic touch. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition, Vol. 5. Perception of space and motion (pp. 401-490). New York: Academic Press.
  89. Turvey, M. T., Shockley, K., & Carello, C. (1999). Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition, 17, B17-B26.
  90. Venderveer, N. J. (1979). Ecological acoustics: Human perception of environmental sounds. Dis- sertation Abstracts International. 40/09B, 4543. (University Microfilms No. 8004002).
  91. Warren, W. H., & Verbrugge, R. R. (1984). Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: Ecological acoustics 30 A case study in ecological acoustics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 704-712.
  92. Warren, W. H., & Whang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per- formance, 13, 371-383.
  93. Wightman, F. L., & Jenison, R. (1995). Auditory spatial layout. In W. Epstein & S. J. Rogers (Eds.) Perception of space and motion (pp. 365-400). San Diego: Academic Press.
  94. Wildes, R., & Richards, W. (1988). Recovering material properties from sound. In W. Richards (Ed.), Natural computation (pp. 356-363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  95. Wuestefeld, A., & Rosenblum, L. (1996). Perceptual learning in an auditory time to arrival task. Technical Report UCR.96.011. University of California, Riverside.

Related papers

Sounding objects
Maurizio Giri
View PDFchevron_right
What in the world do we hear?: An ecological approach to auditory event perception
William Gaver

Ecological psychology, 1993

Everyday listening is the experience of hearing events in the world rather than sounds per se. In this paper, I take an ecological approach to everyday listening in order to overcome constraints on its study implied by more traditional approaches. In particular, I am concerned with developing a new framework for describing sound in terms of audible source attributes. An examination of the continuum of structured energy from event to audition suggests that sound conveys information about events at locations in an environment. Qualitative descriptions of the physics of sound-producing events, complemented by protocol studies, suggest a tripartite division of sound-producing events into those involving vibrating solids, gasses, or liquids. Within each of these categories, basic level events are defined by the simple interactions that can cause these materials to sound, while more complex events can be described in terms of temporal patterning, compound, or hybrid sources. The results of these investigations are used to create a map of sound-producing events and their attributes useful in guiding further exploration.

View PDFchevron_right
Auditory and visual objects
Michael Kubovy

Cognition, 2001

Notions of objecthood have traditionally been cast in visuocentric terminology. As a result, theories of auditory and cross-modal perception have focused more on the differences between modalities than on the similarities. In this paper we re-examine the concept of an object in a way that overcomes the limitations of the traditional perspective. We propose a new, cross-modal conception of objecthood which focuses on the similarities between modalities instead of the differences. Further, we propose that the auditory system might consist of two parallel streams of processing (the`what' and`where' subsystems) in a manner analogous to current conceptions of the visual system. We suggest that the`what' subsystems in each modality are concerned with objecthood. Finally, we present evidence for ± and elaborate on ± the hypothesis that the auditory`where' subsystem is in the service of the visual-motor where' subsystem. q

View PDFchevron_right
On the Emergence and Awareness of Auditory Objects
Shihab Shamma

PLoS Biology, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
The what, where and how of auditory-object perception
Jennifer Bizley

Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2013

| The fundamental perceptual unit in hearing is the 'auditory object'. Similar to visual objects, auditory objects are the computational result of the auditory system's capacity to detect, extract, segregate and group spectrotemporal regularities in the acoustic environment; the multitude of acoustic stimuli around us together form the auditory scene. However, unlike the visual scene, resolving the component objects within the auditory scene crucially depends on their temporal structure. Neural correlates of auditory objects are found throughout the auditory system. However, neural responses do not become correlated with a listener's perceptual reports until the level of the cortex. The roles of different neural structures and the contribution of different cognitive states to the perception of auditory objects are not yet fully understood.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved