Subcategorizing environmental sounds (Brian Gygi )

Subject: Subcategorizing environmental sounds From: Brian Gygi <bgygi@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 21:00:29 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> ----=_vm_0011_W1538518868_28818_1274216429 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I like to think of the goal of the auditory system as enabling an appropria= te response to objects in the environment, so certainly imputation of casua= lity is one way to do that. But I think that is a subgoal in terms of produ= cing a reaction. For example, most harmonic sounds in everyday life are pro= duced by biological sources (vocalizations) or are produced by communicativ= e devices of some sort (sirens, buzzers, musical instruments) which have so= me biological source controlling them. The way one would respond to these (= fight,flight, feed, fancy) is quite different than the way one would respon= d to impact sounds (a car crash), bouncing sounds, liquid sounds (water flo= wing), rolling sounds, scrapings sounds, etc. I did a study on similarity r= atings and free categorizations of environmental sounds (Gygi, et al. 2007)= in which the dimensions of both similarity and categorization corresponded= to acoustic attributes of the sounds, which covaried with the semantic att= ributes. The major clusters seemed to reflect vocalizations, impact sounds = and continuous sounds. Gygi,B., Kidd, G. R., & Watson, C. S. (2007). Similarity and categorization= ofenvironmental sounds. Perception andPsychophysics, 69(6), 839-855. Bruno Giordano has done some work which yields aslightly different structur= ing, but in that case as well the acousticsand semantics are bound together= , they are not independent. I think this partially answers Milena's question about 'difference being ma= de in the definitionof environmental sounds between human, mechanical, elec= tronic,electroacoustic and digital sound?" However, electroacoustic and digital sounds do present a bit of a challenge= since sounds can be synthesized which have no real-world referents. Some w= ork has been done with those, see the upcoming EURASIP Journal on Audio, Sp= eech, and Music Processing (disclosure: Valeriy and I have a piece in that = as well, so you all should definitely get it). Roma,G., Janer, J., Kersten, S., & Schirosa, M. (2010). Ecological acoustic= sperspective for content-based retrieval of environmental sounds. In H.Thor= nburg, S. Serafin & A. Valle (Eds.), EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and = Music Processing (submitted):Hindawi Publishing Corporation. 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: Peter Lennox [mailto:P.Lennox@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 08:48 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds I agree with Bruno here; in either case (living or non-living environmental= sounds), perception of causality is going on. In living sounds, that inclu= des not only the structure of the sounding object, but the intentionality; = the contents (semantic and prosodic)of vocalisations help in this, but let'= s face it, you can hear intentionality in movement of living things, even w= ithout any vocalisation (as in 'purposeful movement', so symbolic content c= an't be the only way we can access the content's of another's mind.So reall= y, we are just arguing about how to sub-categorise 'environmental sounds'Re= gardsppl-----Original Message-----From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Per= ception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Bruno L. GiordanoSen= t: 18 May 2010 16:00To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx: Re: sex difference= s in perception of environmental soundsHello Guillaume et al.,> All our sou= nds were "sound of objects", so we had nothing like baby> crying. And, in m= y opinion, environmental sounds do not include human> vocalizations. Person= ally, I always use Vanderveer's definition [2]:> "... any possible audible = acoustic event which is caused by motions in> the ordinary human environmen= t. (...) Besides 1) having real events as> their sources (...) 2) [they] ar= e usually more ``complex'' than> laboratory sinusoids, (...) 3) [they] are = meaningful, in the sense that> they specify events in the environment. (...= ) 4) The sounds to be> considered are not part of a communication system, o= r communication> sounds, they are taken in their literal rather than signal= or symbolic> interpretation."In my personal opinion we shouldn't use such = a restrictive definition ofenvironmental sounds. Your definition (and that = of Vanderveer)corresponds approximately to the category of nonliving enviro= nmental sounds.Research on environmental sounds is a precious opportunity t= o finallydirect the attention of the research community towards the complex= ity ofthe everyday acoustical environment. If we constraint the definition = ofenvironmental sounds we constrain the research field and miss thisopportu= nity.For the comparative weight of symbolic and sensory(acoustical)informat= ion in the cognitive processing of different categories ofenvironmental sou= nds see Giordano et al. (2010): with baby criessymbolic information seems t= o be more relevant than with "hammeringnail" (surprise surprise). Again, in= my opinion and I assume in that ofseveral other researchers in this field,= baby cries are nonethelessenvironmental sounds. Bruno@xxxxxxxx{giordano10BC= G, author =3D {B. L. Giordano and J. McDonnell and S. McAdams}, title =3D {= Hearing living symbols and nonliving icons:category-specificities in the co= gnitive processing of environmental sounds}, journal =3D {Brain \& Cognitio= n}, year =3D {2010}, volume =3D {73}, pages =3D {7-19}}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bruno L. Giordano, PhDPostdoctoral Research FellowCIRMMT - S= chulich School of Music555 Sherbrooke Street WestMontr=E9al, QC H3A1E3Canad= a+1 514 398 4535, Ext. 00900 (office)+1 514 398 2962 (fax)http://www.music.= mcgill.ca/~bruno/The University of Derby has a published policy regarding e= mail and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this e= mail was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this ema= il. Please direct any concerns to Infosec@xxxxxxxx policy is availabl= e here: http://www.derby.ac.uk/LIS/Email-Policy ----=_vm_0011_W1538518868_28818_1274216429 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <html><div> I like to think of the goa= l of the auditory system as enabling an appropriate response to objects in = the environment, so certainly imputation of casuality is one way to do that= .  But I think that is a subgoal in terms of producing a reaction.&nbs= p; For example, most harmonic sounds in everyday life are produced by biolo= gical sources (vocalizations) or are produced by communicative devices of s= ome sort (sirens, buzzers, musical instruments) which have some biological = source controlling them.  The way one would respond to these (fight,fl= ight, feed, fancy) is quite different than the way one would respond to imp= act sounds (a car crash), bouncing sounds, liquid sounds (water flowing), r= olling sounds, scrapings sounds, etc.  I did a study on similarity rat= ings and free categorizations of environmental sounds (Gygi, et al. 2007) i= n which the dimensions of both similarity and categorization corresponded t= o acoustic attributes of the sounds, which covaried with the semantic attri= butes.  The major clusters seemed to reflect vocalizations, impact sou= nds and continuous sounds.   <meta http-equiv=3D"C= ontent-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta name=3D"ProgId" c= ontent=3D"Word.Document"><meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word= 12"><meta name=3D"Originator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12"><style>  </style> Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R., & Watson, C. S. (2007). Similarity and categorization = of environmental sounds. Perception and Psychophysics, 69(6), 839-855.<br= >Brun= o Giordano has done some work which yields a slightly different structuring, but in that case as well the acoustics and semantics are bound together, they are not independent. I think this partially answers Milena= 's question about 'difference bein= g made in the definition of environmental sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and digital sound?" However, electr= oacoustic and digital sounds do present a bit of a challenge since sounds c= an be synthesized which have no real-world referents.  Some work has b= een done with those, see the upcoming EURASI= P Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing (disclosure: Valeriy and I= have a piece in that as well, so you all should definitely get it). </f= ont> <meta http-equiv=3D"Conten= t-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta name=3D"ProgId" conten= t=3D"Word.Document"><meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12">= <meta name=3D"Originator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12"><style>  </style> Roma, G., Janer, J., Kersten, S., & Schirosa, M. (2010). Ecological acoustics perspective for content-based retrieval of environmental sounds. In H. Thornburg, S. Serafin & A. Valle (Eds.), EURASIP Journal = on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing (submitted): Hindawi Publishing Corporation.  </div> 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<div> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5= px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">= -----Original Message----- From: Peter Lennox [mailto:P.Lennox@xxxxxxxx= RBY.AC.UK] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 08:48 AM To: AUD= ITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: sex differences in perception = of environmental sounds I agree with Bruno here; in either ca= se (living or non-living environmental sounds), perception of causality is = going on. In living sounds, that includes not only the structure of the sou= nding object, but the intentionality; the contents (semantic and prosodic)o= f vocalisations help in this, but let's face it, you can hear intentionalit= y in movement of living things, even without any vocalisation (as in 'purpo= seful movement', so symbolic content can't be the only way we can access th= e content's of another's mind. So really, we are just arguing about how to sub-categorise 'environmental s= ounds' Regards ppl -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ILL.CA] On Behalf Of Bruno L. Giordano Sent: 18 May 2010 16:00 To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds Hello Guillaume et al., > All our sounds were "sound of objects", so we had nothing like baby > crying. And, in my opinion, environmental sounds do not include human > vocalizations. Personally, I always use Vanderveer's definition [2]: > "... any possible audible acoustic event which is caused by motions in > the ordinary human environment. (...) Besides 1) having real events as > their sources (...) 2) [they] are usually more ``complex'' than > laboratory sinusoids, (...) 3) [they] are meaningful, in the sense that > they specify events in the environment. (...) 4) The sounds to be > considered are not part of a communication system, or communication > sounds, they are taken in their literal rather than signal or symbolic > interpretation." In my personal opinion we shouldn't use such a restrictive definition of environmental sounds. Your definition (and that of Vanderveer) corresponds approximately to the category of nonliving environmental sounds. Research on environmental sounds is a precious opportunity to finally direct the attention of the research community towards the complexity of the everyday acoustical environment. If we constraint the definition of environmental sounds we constrain the research field and miss this opportunity. For the comparative weight of symbolic and sensory(acoustical) information in the cognitive processing of different categories of environmental sounds see Giordano et al. (2010): with baby cries symbolic information seems to be more relevant than with "hammering nail" (surprise surprise). Again, in my opinion and I assume in that of several other researchers in this field, baby cries are nonetheless environmental sounds. Bruno @xxxxxxxx{giordano10BCG, author =3D {B. L. Giordano and J. McDonnell and S. McAdams}, title =3D {Hearing living symbols and nonliving icons: category-specificities in the cognitive processing of environmental sounds}, journal =3D {Brain \& Cognition}, year =3D {2010}, volume =3D {73}, pages =3D {7-19} } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bruno L. Giordano, PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow CIRMMT - Schulich School of Music 555 Sherbrooke Street West Montr=E9al, QC H3A1E3 Canada +1 514 398 4535, Ext. 00900 (office) +1 514 398 2962 (fax) http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~bruno/ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves= the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to = you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct= any concerns to Infosec@xxxxxxxx The policy is available here: http://www.derby.ac.uk/LIS/Email-Policy </blockquote></html> ----=_vm_0011_W1538518868_28818_1274216429--

This message came from the mail archive
/home/empire6/dpwe/public_html/postings/2010/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University