[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AUDITORY Digest - 11 Apr 2004 to 13 Apr 2004 (#2004-78)
- To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 11 Apr 2004 to 13 Apr 2004 (#2004-78)
- From: Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:52:30 -0700
- Comments: To: "Watson, Charles S" <watson@INDIANA.EDU>
- Delivery-date: Wed Apr 14 14:45:01 2004
- In-reply-to: <555E89DEEB53B343A8970C3E68A9ED2401C88CA3@iu-mssg-mbx06.exc hange.iu.edu>
- Reply-to: Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chuck Watson's note came into this discussion like a whiff of fresh breeze.
To me, the distinction between perception and cognition is quantitative
rather than dichotomous. Can we set a criterion, something like "if it
takes longer than five seconds to make a response, then the task is
cognitive?" Otherwise we will be forced to continue to characterize both
concepts with lists of what they are not, not what they are or might be. I
remember way-back in the early 70's when suddenly psychology departments
decided to focus on cognition and perception teachers had to re-tool to
teach cognitive psych 101. At a meeting in 72 or 73, our colleague Barry
Leshowitz announced to us, with some hilarity, that he devoted an entire
lecture to 2AFC because that task was cognitive. It sure beat courses such
as animal cognition, etc...
Pierre Divenyi