Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 63–89 | Cite as

On the Diversity of Auditory Objects

  • Mohan MatthenEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper defends two theses about sensory objects. The more general thesis is that directly sensed objects are those delivered by sub-personal processes. It is shown how this thesis runs counter to perceptual atomism, the view that wholes are always sensed indirectly, through their parts. The more specific thesis is that while the direct objects of audition are all composed of sounds, these direct objects are not all sounds—here, a composite auditory object is a temporal sequence of sounds (whereas a composite visual object is a spatial composite). Many composite objects are directly heard in the sense just mentioned. There is a great variety of such composite auditory objects—melodies, harmonies, sequences of phonemes, individual voices, meaning-carrying sounds, and so on. This diversity of auditory objects has an important application to aesthetics. Perceivers do not naturally or easily attend simultaneously to auditory objects that overlap in time. Yet, aesthetic appreciation depends on such an allocation of attention to overlapping objects.

Keywords

Material Object Direct Object Auditory Feature Auditory Object Aesthetic Appreciation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergeron, Vincent, and Mohan Matthen. 2007. Assembling the emotions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32: 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bregman, Albert S. 1990. Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Casati, Roberto, and Jerome Dokic. 2005. Sounds. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/sounds/>.
  4. Cogan, Robert. 1969. Toward a theory of timbre: Verbal timbre and musical line in Purcell, Sessions, and Stravinsky. Perspectives of New Music 8: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Firth, Roderick. 1949. Sense-data and the percept theory. Part I. Mind 57: 434–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallistel, C.R. 1990. The organization of learning. Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths, Timothy D., and Jason D. Warren. 2004. What is an auditory object? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 887–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, Geoffrey. 1994. Pavlovian conditioning: Laws of association. In Animal learning and cognition, ed. N.J. Mackintosh, 15–43. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Handel, Stephen. 2006. Perceptual coherence: Hearing and seeing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatfield, Gary. 1990. The natural and the normative: Theories of spatial perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Hickok, Gregory, and David Poeppel. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8: 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman, Donald D. 1998. Visual intelligence: How we create what we see. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, Frank. 1977. Perception: A representative theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kanizsa, Gaetano. 1976. Subjective contours. Scientific American 234: 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kubovy, Michael, and David Van Valkenberg. 2001. Auditory and visual objects. Cognition 80: 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar, S., K.E. Stephen, J.D. Warren, K.J. Friston, and T.D. Griffiths. 2007. Hierarchical processing of auditory objects in humans. PLoS Computational Biology 3: e100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitin, Daniel J. 2006. This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, David. 1966. Percepts and color mosaics in visual experience. The Philosophical Review 75: 357–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liberman, A.M., F.S. Cooper, D.P. Shankweiler, and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74: 431–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackintosh, N.J. 1994. Introduction. In Animal learning and cognition, ed. N.J. Mackintosh, 1–13. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Matthen, Mohan. 2005. Seeing, doing, and knowing: A philosophical theory of sense-perception. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. O’Callaghan, Casey. 2009a. Sounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. O’Callaghan, Casey. 2009b. Seeing what you hear: Cross-modal illusions and perception. Philosophical Issues.Google Scholar
  24. Pasnau, Robert. 1999. What is sound? Philosophical Quarterly 49: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavlov, Ivan. 1904/1968. The 1904 nobel lecture, excerpted in a translation by W. Horsley Grant. In A source book in the history of psychology, ed. Richard Herrnstein, and Edwin G. Boring. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Peterson, Mary A. 2001. Object perception. In Blackwell handbook of perception, ed. E.B. Goldsmith, 168–203. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–423.Google Scholar
  28. Recanzone, Gregg H. 2002. Where was that?—Human auditory spatial processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 319–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thorndike, Edward L. 1898. Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement 2(No. 4): 1–109.Google Scholar
  30. Wollheim, Richard. 1973. On art and the mind. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and TechnologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations