Re: By any other name...

[Erik Larsen <elarsen@xxxxxxx>]

I'd say that is exactly the reason why the masked sound appears to 
continue throughout the duration of the masker. The brain has no 
evidence to assume the attended sound actually ceased. From the same 
philosophical point of view you would have to assume the effect can only 
persist for as long as the attended signal is, at least to some degree, 
predictable, e.g. on a time scale of phonemes for speech sounds and in 
music probably related to meter.

Of course a microphone and some signal processing would most likely be 
able to prove that the sound was absent from the acoustic signal. 
(Un)fortunately, the brain doesn't have access to the acoustic signal 
directly.

Coincidentally, the quote from Lewis Carroll in the signature below 
appears very appropriate for this discussion (especially if you care to 
remain in a philosophical mood for a little longer).

Erik

--
Erik Larsen
PhD candidate Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology
http://web.mit.edu/shbt

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
		-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"


Bruno Repp wrote:
> Dear Richard:
>
> There is a philosophical (or methodological?) problem I've had with this 
> effect for a long time: If, as you say, "the interrupting louder sound 
> stimulates the same peripheral receptors that would have been stimulated 
> if the sound had indeed been present", what proves that the sound is 
> actually absent?
>
> Best,
> Bruno