ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[pkane2001]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Happy to explain how it *may* be applicable, Paul.  (You'll note I've been saying things like "I wonder" in connection with this.)

 

- We know there are audio phenomena subject to a training effect.  You didn't think you heard the phenomenon; you were trained; now you "hear" it.  Of course you were able to hear it before in the sense of the sound waves stimulating cochlear cells; but now you *notice* it.

 

- We know there are stimuli that people do not consciously notice, yet produce surprisingly powerful emotional effects (elevated galvanic skin response - literal "cold sweat"), as shown by the Iowa Gambling Task experiment.

 

- Are there such stimuli in audio?  We would intuitively think if something doesn't even rise to the level of conscious notice, it can't possibly cause any significant emotional response.  But are there audio stimuli analogous to the subconscious stimulus in the Iowa Gambling Task?  Are there things we in fact hear (again in the sense of stimulating cochlear cells) but do not consciously notice, that nevertheless wind up having a significant emotional impact?  Is your DAC making you break out in a cold sweat, but you don't notice? ;-) Are there digital filters that you couldn't pick out in a blind test without training, but you nevertheless somehow find yourself tapping your foot and smiling when they're used?

 

I wonder. 

 

Thanks, Jud. I see. I believe subconscious processing of senses is not only significant, but is the bulk of our brain perception processing. We become conscious of only a tiny portion of what our brain is doing.

 

The IGT experiment didn't demonstrate (at least based on my reading) that "normal" people experienced cold sweat and trepidation due to some sort of psychic ability to predict which deck is good and which is bad, without ever seeing it. That's not what they were "trained" to do. What the experiment showed was that "normal" people were easily trained to be afraid and to anticipate a poor outcome, regardless of what's in the deck, i.e., when the real outcome is unknown. That's no different than one learning not to put a hand into a fire, or maybe not to touch a hanging power-line. It's not that we can sense whether the wire is live or not, it's that most of us are afraid to touch it because it might be.

 

Learning to expect certain things and being subconsciously afraid of the unpleasant outcome isn't something that applies to audio, at least in any obvious way that I can see. (Except, maybe, when a tube lover is going to be listening to a solid-state device, and is breaking out in cold sweat in anticipation) :) 

 

In a way, IGT describes a subconscious bias against things we found unpleasant in the past that affects us in new cases, where the outcome may or may not be unpleasant.

[pkane2001]

49 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

 

The pedant in me want to take issue with a few "problems", but that would distract and detract from the interesting part of this exchange: the brain does respond to subconscious (or sub-cognitive) perception. Most people I know who have done differential threshold studies have noticed this. (None of us were doing auditory studies though, but certainly multiple sensory systems, so the auditory system should also.) I can't think of a reason it would only be to avoid (or have bias against) an unpleasant thing; seeking (or having a bias toward) a pleasant thing must also exist, IMHO.

 

Hi SAM, yes, of course.

 

The discussion related to the Iowa gambling task (IGT) experiment was the reason why we were discussing the negative subconscious reactions and cold sweat.

 

But, without proof or data to back it up, I'll make the assertion that negative subconscious reactions are probably easier to train than positive ones, Pavlov's dogs notwithstanding ;)

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Why do you assert that negative reactions are easier to train?

 

I suspect that one electric shock might be enough to teach someone to subconsciously anticipate it when seeing any exposed wire, while an exceptionally pleasant-sounding music is unlikely to make someone automatically expect that same experience to repeat when seeing a similar audio system :)

 

I think my assertion was made more on the expectation that the evolutionary pressure for self-preservation might be a more powerful teacher than something very pleasant that's not associated with survival (not related to food or procreation). But, again, I have no data to substantiate this assertion :)

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

As Jud suggested, perhaps 2 filters, not distinguishable by a test requiring cognitive input, are processed differently in a way that one induces toe-tapping, while the other "fatigue". IDK.

 

Maybe I misunderstood Jud's point, but IGT doesn't demonstrate that we can be trained to correctly distinguish between two outcomes through some unknown perception mechanism, but rather that we can be trained to become subconsciously biased, with the accompanying measurable galvanic skin reaction, towards one of the two outcomes.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

No, I probably misunderstood. But in my defense, I saw this:

which ultimately led to mentioning the IGT. Then Jud said this:

and I interpreted it to mean that the IGT was a template example (not the specific test of interest) to be used for speculative questions about the brain's processing of audio. Since audio in the brain is more interesting to me, I may have put my thoughts in his head. @Jud can tell us what he meant.

 

Independent of Jud's goals, I find thinking about subconsciously perceived audio stimuli producing an unexpected behavior more interesting that gambling behavior (IGT), so I'd prefer to continue with that. I prefer to avoid the IGT, as not directly relevant to my interests. Guess I'm just a bit selfish.

 

Since you have experience in this space, is there a simple mechanism to measure subconscious reaction of a listener along the lines of what they did in the IGT experiment? Would some sort of a "lie detector" type machine be a way to record someone's reaction while switching between filters, for example?

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

@SoundAndMotion and @pkane2001, perhaps not necessary to reinvent the wheel here.  Is there anything in Oohashi's experiment that's relevant (verbal responses vs. fMRI results)?

 

By the way, Paul, did the folks with the "good" decks in the IGT experience elevated GSR?  That's what we'd expect if it was due to generalized anticipation of negative consequences.

 

The galvanic skin response in IGT speaks to the subconscious processing that may occur prior to someone becoming consciously aware of a decision or a choice. This is reasonable and accepted (I said as much earlier -- our brain does the bulk of the work without ever elevating it to full conscious awareness). If that's what you are trying to say when you mention IGT, then we are in agreement.