Subject: Re: By any other name... From: Erik Larsen <elarsen@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:44:05 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>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 >