[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Just to add to more spice...
Dear list members,
I noticed a difference in the study you suggested:
- in some case we know what there is it in the signal and the repetition
- in some other we do not know what there is in the signal (e.g., the
signal is a noise) and top-down processes make sense out of things that
do not have sense.
My case is like the second because we do not know the words that the
speakers are actually saying. Just to add a bit of spice, the recording
will be used in court next week.
In any case, I was surprise by the amount of top-down processing that is
involved in listening:
1. firstly I was given no clues about the recording and I could pick
only few isolated words
2. after I was given a context and I could pick occasional sentences
3. later I was given a list of target words and I could hear some of
them although not clearly
4. at the end, in a kind of "guided listening", and by listening
repeatedly to selected part of the recordings I could hear the target words.
Now, when I listen to the recording I'm stuck on my latest perception
(i.e., #4) and even if I'm given a different context and/or alternative
target words I keep listening the same words and sentences.
All the best to everybody and enjoy the world cup,