Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds (David John SMith )

Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds From: David John SMith <smithd@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:46:25 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> ----------MB_8CCC570CF4395A9_E40_2316_web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree - interpretation is also a fleeting thing -? the sounds in a clas= sroom resulting from an experiment involving 1"=20 solid steel spheres bouncing on the concrete floor of the classroom above,= for example, could be interpreted as an=20 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=20 with gas escaping from bodily cavities??=20 -----Original Message----- From: valeriy shafiro <firosha@xxxxxxxx> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] sex differences in perception of environmental sou= nds =20 =20 =20 Dear Milena,=20 =20 You raise several important points. The cultural, environmental, and=20 other factors you mention are certainly worth considering. However,=20 depending on specific questions one is asking their influence may (or=20 may not) be detected in an experiment. In this case, deciding how=20 specifically these potentially important factors influence our=20 everyday perception becomes more of a personal opinion. For example,=20 if one is concerned with acoustic cues to the perception of breaking=20 and bouncing events, to draw on a classic study, the results may not=20 necessarily be influenced by the factors you mentioned (most societies=20 have experience with breaking and bouncing). On the other hand, for a=20 specific set of culturally specific sounds there could be marked=20 differences, perhaps not entirely unlike some of the differences=20 between any expert and novice listeners. The magnitude and nature of=20 these effects still remains to be explored for the most part. While=20 there are good reasons to believe that these cultural and societal=20 factors may play a role, there is not much in the way of empirical=20 evidence that I am aware of (except what Brian mentioned, and a couple=20 of other studies, depending on how exactly you frame the question). I=20 could not agree with you more that these factors should be=20 investigated further and I think it is unfortunate that there is such=20 a large gap between ecological acoustics and acoustic ecology, despite=20 a seeming terminological similarity and often common goals of=20 understanding sound perception in the real world. At the same time I=20 believe that discussions like this, while getting further and further=20 away from the original question asked by Joanna, do help to consider=20 different takes on the same underlying questions.=20 =20 Best,=20 =20 Valeriy=20 =20 On 5/18/10, Milena Droumeva <mvdroume@xxxxxxxx> wrote:=20 > Dear all,=20 >=20 > rather than having some hard evidence to offer, I see this important= =20 > discussion as a way to keep the conversation going and wanted to just= =20 > express an opinion on the definition of "environmental sounds" and ot= her=20 > confounding factors about the perception of environmental sounds that= I=20 > believe defy a bit direct comparisons of basic human differences such= as=20 > sex, even age, etc.=20 >=20 > My familiarity and work with environmental sounds comes from some yea= rs of=20 > work as a sound designer and auditory display designer where I've tak= en=20 > "environmental sounds" and used them as basis for designing informati= onal=20 > displays, as well as continuous feedback. I also have a background in= =20 > acoustic ecology of the R.M. Schafer kind (if any of you are familiar= )=20 >=20 > I have to admit I am surprised to learn that in the psychology area= there is=20 > an established definition of environmental sounds, given - and here= is my=20 > "opinion" point - the highly culturally defined and specific nature= of=20 > environmental sound perception. The example of baby crying is just to= o easy=20 > to pick on, but I will anyway - it could be argued that this is a hig= hly=20 > particular sound, laden with cultural meaning and habituation. Before= it can=20 > be reduced to sex differences, must we not recognize that not only pa= rents=20 > vs. non-parents would naturally have an elevated sensitivity to it,= as it is=20 > meaningful, but also women, even non-parents - get socialized in almo= st=20 > every culture - to think of themselves as potential mothers, and thus= might,=20 > again, be more sensitive to a sound of baby crying. To me, this does= not=20 > imply biology and primary psychology (that is, sex differences in=20 > perception) - it implies cultural habituation.=20 >=20 > This can be said for many, seemingly "innocent" and everyday/familiar= =20 > environmental sounds - and I am curios, based on this discussion - ar= e any=20 > of these other confounding factors (pesky cultural ones) being taken= into=20 > account in any way in the psychoacoustic field?=20 >=20 > Further - is any difference being made in the definition of environme= ntal=20 > sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and dig= ital=20 > sound?=20 >=20 > Thank you for entertaining my concerns - I just think this is a reall= y=20 > important discussion to have here!=20 >=20 > Milena=20 >=20 > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Brian Gygi <bgygi@xxxxxxxx>= wrote:=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > David,=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Although no formal body has ruled on the topic, in the past seve= ral years=20 > the term "environmental sounds" has acquired a relatively stable defi= nition=20 > - namely familiar, naturally occurring sounds that refer to physical= =20 > sources in the environment. There is of course some ambiguity regard= ing=20 > precisely what fits into this category, i.e., do musical instruments= count,=20 > whose primary function is acoustic conveyance of aesthetic attributes= rather=20 > than sound source specification? In any case,tThis is the definition= I and=20 > others have taken in our work and what I assume Joanna meant. If not= I hope=20 > she will let us know.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Brian Gygi, Ph.D.=20 > > Speech and Hearing Research=20 > > Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System=20 > > 150 Muir Road=20 > > Martinez, CA 94553=20 > > (925) 372-2000 x5653=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message-----=20 > > From: David Mountain [mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx=20 > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 08:06 PM=20 > > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental soun= ds=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > I think that before we can address this question, we need to def= ine what=20 > we mean by "environmental sounds."=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, valeriy shafiro <firosha@xxxxxxxx= ail.com>=20 > wrote:=20 > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Dear Joanna,=20 > > >=20 > > > As far as I know across the studies of environmental sound= perception=20 > > > in the last 20-30 years none was designed specifically to= examine=20 > > > male/female differences. Results from studies that looked= at=20 > > > identification of large collections of different types of= =20 > > > environmental sounds also did not find any differences, alt= hough in a=20 > > > recent study on environmental sound identification within= contextually=20 > > > congruent and incongruent auditory scenes, Brian Gygi and= I, saw an=20 > > > overall identification difference between males and females= , but it=20 > > > was small (3-4 points) and non significant. It is conceiva= ble that=20 > > > given a large variety of familiar environmental sounds test= ed in these=20 > > > studies, whatever differences there may be between males an= d females=20 > > > are obscured, and that for a set of specific sounds there= are may be=20 > > > sex differeces in behavioral of physiologic measures (e.g.= baby=20 > > > crying). While not specifically targeting environmental so= unds, John=20 > > > Neuhoff did find some interesting sex differences in the pe= rception of=20 > > > looming motion, which might relevant to your question.=20 > > >=20 > > > Best regards,=20 > > >=20 > > > Valeriy=20 > > >=20 > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Joanna Kantor-Martynuska= =20 > > > <joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx> wrote:=20 > > > > Dear Auditory List,=20 > > > >=20 > > > > I would very much appreciate your suggestions about th= e literature=20 > regarding=20 > > > > sex differences in perception of environmental sounds.= I intrested=20 > in=20 > > > > physiological indices of auditory predispositions for= perception of=20 > > > > different sounds we encounter in our natural environme= nt.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Looking forward to any interesting suggestions or link= s.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Best,=20 > > > > Joanna Kantor=20 > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > >=20 > > David C. Mountain, Ph.D.=20 > > Professor of Biomedical Engineering=20 > >=20 > > Boston University=20 > > 44 Cummington St.=20 > > Boston, MA 02215=20 > >=20 > > Email: dcm@xxxxxxxx=20 > > Website:=20 > http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory-biophysics/=20 > > Phone: (617) 353-4343=20 > > FAX: (617) 353-6766=20 > > Office: ERB 413=20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 =20 =20 =3D ----------MB_8CCC570CF4395A9_E40_2316_web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <div> 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?  </div> <div> </div> -----Original Message----- From: valeriy shafiro <firosha@xxxxxxxx> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] sex differences in perception of environmental sou= nds <div id=3D"AOLMsgPart_0_f5742939-66f8-499c-9607-a16b9e9f9508" style=3D"mar= gin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px;= color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><tt>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 <br= > have experience with breaking and bouncing). On the other hand, for a <br= > 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 <br= > of other studies, depending on how exactly you frame the question). I <br= > 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 <br= > 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 <<a>mvdroume@xxxxxxxx</a>> 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 ot= her > 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 yea= rs of > work as a sound designer and auditory display designer where I've tak= en > "environmental sounds" and used them as basis for designing informati= onal > 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 to= o easy > to pick on, but I will anyway - it could be argued that this is a hig= hly > particular sound, laden with cultural meaning and habituation. Before= it can > be reduced to sex differences, must we not recognize that not only pa= rents > vs. non-parents would naturally have an elevated sensitivity to it,= as it is > meaningful, but also women, even non-parents - get socialized in almo= st > 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 <br= > > 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 - ar= e 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 environme= ntal > sounds between human, mechanical, electronic, electroacoustic and dig= ital > sound? > > Thank you for entertaining my concerns - I just think this is a reall= y > important discussion to have here! > > Milena > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Brian Gygi <<a>bgygi@xxxxxxxx</= a>> wrote: > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > Although no formal body has ruled on the topic, in the past seve= ral years > the term "environmental sounds" has acquired a relatively stable defi= nition > - namely familiar, naturally occurring sounds that refer to physical= > sources in the environment. There is of course some ambiguity regard= ing > 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 [<a>mailto:dcm@xxxxxxxx</a>] > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 08:06 PM > > To: <a>AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental soun= ds > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that before we can address this question, we need to def= ine what > we mean by "environmental sounds." > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, valeriy shafiro <<a>firosha= @xxxxxxxx</a>> > 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, alt= hough 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 conceiva= ble that > > > given a large variety of familiar environmental sounds test= ed in these > > > studies, whatever differences there may be between males an= d 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 so= unds, John > > > Neuhoff did find some interesting sex differences in the pe= rception of > > > looming motion, which might relevant to your question. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Valeriy > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Joanna Kantor-Martynuska= > > > <<a>joanna.kantor@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote: > > > > Dear Auditory List, > > > > > > > > I would very much appreciate your suggestions about th= e 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 environme= nt. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to any interesting suggestions or link= s. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Joanna Kantor > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David C. Mountain, Ph.D. > > Professor of Biomedical Engineering > > > > Boston University > > 44 Cummington St. > > Boston, MA 02215 > > > > Email: <a>dcm@xxxxxxxx</a> > > Website: > <a>http://www.bu.edu/hrc/research/laboratories/auditory-biophysics/</= a> > > Phone: (617) 353-4343 > > FAX: (617) 353-6766 > > Office: ERB 413 > > > > > > </tt></pre> </div> ----------MB_8CCC570CF4395A9_E40_2316_web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com--

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