| Has anyone else found a large part or the entirety of this interesting discussion relegated to their spam folder, on the basis that it has the word "sex" in the subject header? Or is my spam filter being over zealous in its attempts to protect me from the unwanted attention of companies offering me enhancement potential?
Jose
On 19 May 2010, at 14:46, David John SMith wrote:
I agree - interpretation is also a fleeting thing - the sounds in a classroom resulting from an experiment involving 1"
solid steel spheres bouncing on the concrete floor of the classroom above, for example, could be interpreted as an
_expression_ of disdain for the english dept on the part of the physics dept, or not.
Can anyone name a stable widespread culturally or sexually specific sound event interpretation not having to do
with gas escaping from bodily cavities?
-----Original Message-----
From: valeriy shafiro <firosha@xxxxxxxxx>
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 10:58 pm
Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] sex differences in perception of environmental sounds
Dear Milena,
You raise several important points. The cultural, environmental, and
other factors you mention are certainly worth considering. However,
depending on specific questions one is asking their influence may (or
may not) be detected in an experiment. In this case, deciding how
specifically these potentially important factors influence our
everyday perception becomes more of a personal opinion. For example,
if one is concerned with acoustic cues to the perception of breaking
and bouncing events, to draw on a classic study, the results may not
necessarily be influenced by the factors you mentioned (most societies
have experience with breaking and bouncing). On the other hand, for a
specific set of culturally specific sounds there could be marked
differences, perhaps not entirely unlike some of the differences
between any expert and novice listeners. The magnitude and nature of
these effects still remains to be explored for the most part. While
there are good reasons to believe that these cultural and societal
factors may play a role, there is not much in the way of empirical
evidence that I am aware of (except what Brian mentioned, and a couple
of other studies, depending on how exactly you frame the question). I
could not agree with you more that these factors should be
investigated further and I think it is unfortunate that there is such
a large gap between ecological acoustics and acoustic ecology, despite
a seeming terminological similarity and often common goals of
understanding sound perception in the real world. At the same time I
believe that discussions like this, while getting further and further
away from the original question asked by Joanna, do help to consider
different takes on the same underlying questions.
Best,
Valeriy
On 5/18/10, Milena Droumeva <mvdroume@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> rather 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 opinion on the definition of "environmental sounds" and other
> confounding factors about the perception of environmental sounds that I
> believe defy a bit 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
> "environmental sounds" and used them as basis for designing informational
> displays, 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 is
> an established definition of environmental sounds, given - and here is my
> "opinion" point - the highly culturally defined and specific 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 this is a highly
> particular 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
> every culture - to think of themselves as potential mothers, and thus might,
> again, be more sensitive to a sound of baby crying. To me, this does not
> imply 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
> environmental sounds - and I am curios, based on this discussion - are any
> of these other confounding factors (pesky cultural ones) being taken into
> account in any way in the psychoacoustic field?
>
> Further - is any difference being made in the definition of environmental
> sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and digital
> sound?
>
> Thank you for entertaining my concerns - I just think this is a really
> important discussion to have here!
>
> Milena
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Brian Gygi <bgygi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> >
> > Although no formal body has ruled on the topic, in the past several years
> the term "environmental sounds" has acquired a relatively stable definition
> - namely familiar, naturally occurring sounds that refer to physical
> sources in the environment. There is of course some ambiguity regarding
> precisely what fits into this category, i.e., do musical instruments count,
> whose primary function is acoustic conveyance of aesthetic attributes rather
> than sound 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 will 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@xxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 08:06 PM
> > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Dear Auditory List,
> > > >
> > > > I would very much appreciate your suggestions about the literature
> regarding
> > > > sex differences in perception of environmental sounds. I 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@xxxxxx
> > Website:
> http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory-biophysics/
> > Phone: (617) 353-4343
> > FAX: (617) 353-6766
> > Office: ERB 413
> >
> >
>
>
Dr José Ignacio Alcántara
Department of Experimental Psychology
University of Cambridge
Downing Street
Cambridge, UK
CB2 3EB
Phone: 44 (0)1223 764412
Fax: 44 (0)1223 333564
Fellow of Fitzwilliam College
Cambridge, UK
CB3 0DG
Phone: 44 (0)1223 472126
|