# social references, perceptual phenomena

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/social-references-perceptual-phenomena/15019
**Category:** CSG1993
**Created:** [May 20, 1993, 8:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/social-references-perceptual-phenomena/15019 "1993-05-20T20:14:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard_S1)
#### Post date: [May 20, 1993, 8:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/social-references-perceptual-phenomena/15019/1 "1993-05-20T20:14:10Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (930520.1300)]

Bruce Nevin (Wed 930519 16:20:22) --

> My understanding is that the reference signal is the playback  
> from memory

Probably not the best way to think of it. I think if you read about  
(or, better still, work with) my spreadsheet model (in "Mind  
Readings") you'll get a better feel for how it works.

I said:

> What you  
> describe is exactly what happens in Tom's cooperation experiment

You say:

> I don't understand how it is the same.

What I meant was that a conversation is similar to what is going on  
in Tom's experiment. In order to control a higher order variable (say,  
"being polite") both people in the conversation have to be controlling  
for a similar variable (like both subjects in Tom's experiment had to control  
for "three lines in a row"). In order to achieve this higher level goal, both  
people have to control their parts of the conversation properly -- just as  
the subject's in Tom's experiment both had to control "their pair of lines"  
properly. The analysis of the conversation is a bit more difficult  
than the analysis of Tom's experiment because we don't know what variables  
are actually being controlled by the parties to the conversation. But the  
principle is the same in both cases -- which is that, for each control system  
involved in the interaction, effects on at least some of the variables being  
controlling are mediated by a feedback connection that runs through the  
other control system; that is, some of the feedback functions for both  
control systems EXIST BECAUSE the other control system is CONTROLLING.

Bruce Nevin (Thu 930520 14:30:21) --

> Some interesting experimental data about speech:

> We pause here for you to guess what you would perceive with these  
> experimental setups.

Fun questions. My experience is that it is very hard to predict how  
you will perceive. For example, a friend and I once tried to make an  
auditory analog of the Julesz random dot stereograms by phase shifting  
some of the components of computer generated "noise" (harmonically  
spaced equal amplitude sine waves). We thought we could phase shift  
a "vowel" type sound out -- it should have been heard in the left ear when  
the noise was shifted right, for example. But no -- just noise.

I also tried an auditory analog of another Julesz demo -- spacial frequency  
masking. That's the one where a bunch of grey squares turns into Lincoln's  
face when you squint or move back far enough (presumably filtering out the  
high spatial frequency noise of the square edges). I mixed vowels with  
"noise" that had a "high frequency" or "low frequency" SPECTRAL profile.  
Since vowel perception seems to be based on "low frequency"  
spectral shape (the "formants") I thought the low frequency "noise"  
would mask better than the high frequency "noise" -- even though the  
noise energy was the same in both cases, producing the same level of  
masking based on S/N ratio. In fact, the result was that both noises  
produced the same level of "masking" -- because the result of mixing  
vowel and noise was always a "new vowel". A linguist told me that  
that would happen but I didn't believe him -- I'm sure both you and Avery  
wish that I had learned my lesson right then and there about the wisdom  
of listening to linguists.

> Experiment 1: In one ear (say, the right ear) play the acoustic signal  
> for syllables, only with gaps (silence) in place of the transitions.  
> In the other ear (the left) play the glissandi for various syllables,  
> appropriately timed to match the gaps.

> In experiment 1, what do you hear in the right ear  
> and what do you hear in the left?

My guess is that the right ear heard, if not the "correct" syllables,  
at least some syllables; the configuration systems that hear syllables  
were probabaly able to piece the left ear stuff in to produce the  
syllable perception. The left ear probably sounded like clicks --  
sensations that were just happening in parallel to the syllable  
configuations.

> Are there changes as amplitude is  
> decreased equally in both channels, and if so, what?

As amplitude is decreased equally in both channels? If so, my guess  
is that new syllables were heard as the amplitude decreased;  
'baa' became 'daa' perhaps. But there would still be the separate  
clicks and syllables in each channel.

> Experiment 2: play the syllable /ba/ three times while displaying  
> a face pronouncing /bE vE thE/ perfectly synchronized with the  
> acoustic signal. (/E/ is the vowel in "bed", /dh/ is the consonant  
> in "the".).

> In experiment 2,  
> what do you hear in the headphones?

I think they would hear what they see -- they hear /bE vE thE/. I think  
this is because language perception has a visual component and  
the perceptual functions that produce these syllables probably  
have inputs from the visual system. If the sound input to these  
functions is not radically different than what could go with the  
visual input, then the visual input could be the main determiner  
of the magnitude of the perceptual signal generated by each  
syllable configuration detector.

Given my track record at predicting perceptual phenomena, I would  
not be surprised if I'm 0 for 2 on your test.

Looking forward to the results (sort of)

Rick