Re: [microsound] Scientists Say We Can See Sound

[Ross Rochford <digiology@xxxxxxxxx>]

I wonder if this is merely to do with the lag in the visual system, its
around 10 ms according to this article
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080602-foresee-future.html but
perhaps a 10 ms difference is neglegable for these tests. It possible that
our auditory system has a lower lag since its much more sensitive to
temporal information.
Neuoff's 'Ecological Psychoacoustics' has a chapter on cross modal
interaction between vision and audition, its thought that all our senses
unify to form a single coherent precepts of real world objects.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:19 PM, aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think every version of this article had "seeing sound" somewhere in the
> title.  BBC, CNN, on and on.  It is in there best interest to entice
> potential readers with a some what misleading title blurb.  Sucks to read an
> article when you realize its not exactly what you had first assumed.
>
> aLEKs
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 1:27 PM, craquemat wrote:
>
>  yeah when i saw that link i thought the same thing.... you could flash a
>> bright light when the two circles meet and still think they bounce. i hardly
>> think this is a "seeing sound" phenomenon as much as it's a
>> "multi-associative sensory experience" thing.
>>
>> Gary R. Weisberg wrote:
>>
>>> A curious connection between this post and the other two simultaneous
>>> ones about the death of the monoculture and Curtis's BBC program about
>>> Freud's influence on PR and advertising.
>>> It seems strange at first that the article referred to below would frame
>>> itself by using the phrase 'Seeing Sound', since the research clearly shows
>>> a synergistic relationship between sight and sound and not a study of
>>> synesthesia, which would be more relevant to the phrase. The title of the
>>> article could just as easily (and more to the point) have been 'Study shows
>>> how sound enhances visual cues' or 'Scientists show how sound increases our
>>> visual acuity'. However, saying that scientists say we can 'see sound' is
>>> much more catchy, and appeals to our more sensational bent - Ooh! We can see
>>> sound! I knew it!
>>> This is a fairly innocuous use of the concepts both of appealing to the
>>> monoculture and of engineering a PR manipulation of reality to 'sell'
>>> something. In this case it has nothing to do with the marketplace, but the
>>> concepts that lead to presenting this information in this way, most likely
>>> to attract more readers, is one that Bernays would have been proud of :-)
>>> Kim Cascone wrote:
>>>
>>
>  Turning conventional neuroscience on its head, new research suggests the
>>>>> human visual system processes sound and helps us see.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6rs9c4
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>