Re: Difference between cognition and perception? (Christian Kaernbach )


Subject: Re: Difference between cognition and perception?
From:    Christian Kaernbach  <mailinglist(at)KAERNBACH.DE>
Date:    Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:16:41 +0200

Dear Christophe, > What's up with "perceptual learning" then? > Also, the field known as "speech perception" would actually address > cognition (because speech processing depends on language experience). That's why I started with claiming that there is no such consensus. The usage of these terms does not adhere to strict definitions. It is not like in law (or math) where definitions come first and usage thereafter, but it is a post-hoc attempt to try to find definitions that fit the usage. Perceptual learning would clearly not fit with my criterion (although I can find some sense in this usage: Processes that are generally thought as being "purely perceptual" are demonstrated to depend on prior experience). And yes: I do think speech perception is a misnomer. I would think that this research would clearly fit into any cognitive science unit. But usage is not bound to be consistent. > Actually, I have difficulties finding examples of processes which do > *not* involve some sort of memory/.// That was discussed in my example, oomparing 2IFC and S1-S2: Memory may be involved but not in the focus of perceptual research. Best, Christian


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2004/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University