Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 11, pp 2629–2643 | Cite as

Towards a rich view of auditory experience

Article
  • 223 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper I will argue that the gender properties expressed by human voices are part of auditory phenomenology. I will support this claim by investigating auditory adaptational effects on such properties and contrasting auditory experiences, before and after the adaptational effects take place. In light of this investigation, I will conclude that auditory experience is not limited to low-level properties. Perception appears to be much more informative about the auditory landscape than is commonly thought.

Keywords

Auditory experience Rich view of perceptual content Sound Adaptational effects Method of contrast 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper have benefited from discussions with Claire Benn, Ned Block, Roberto Casati, Bence Nanay, Matthew Nudds, Casey O’Callaghan, Krisztina Orban, Olla Solomyak, Alberto Voltolini, and Uri Weiss. I am particularly grateful to Sharon Berry, Stefano Ercolino, Susanna Siegel, Hong Yu Wong, and the anonymous referees for their insightful comments. This work has been initially supported by the Fondazione Franco and Marilisa Caligara and the University of Turin.

References

  1. Antal, A., Varga, E. T., Nitsche, M. A., Chadaide, Z., Paulus, W., Kovacs, G., et al. (2004). Direct current stimulation over MT +/V5 modulates motion aftereffect in humans. NeuroReport, 15, 2491–2494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1991). On Dreams, 459b1–459b23 (J. I. Beare, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bayne, T. (2009). Perception and the reach of phenomenal content. Philosophical Quarterly, 236, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bestelmeyer, P. E. G., Rouger, J., DeBruine, L. M., & Belin, P. (2010). Auditory adaptation in vocal affect perception. Cognition, 117, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, N. (2010). Attention and mental paint. Philosophical Issues, 20, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, N. (2014). Seeing-as in the light of vision science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1), 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briscoe, R. (2015). Cognitive penetration and the reach of phenomenal content. In A. Raftopoulos & J. Zeimbekis (Eds.), Cognitive penetration (pp. 174–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brogaard, B. (2013). Do we perceive natural kind properties? Philosophical Studies, 162(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burr, D., & Ross, J. (2008). A visual sense of number. Current Biology, 18, 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butterfill, S. (2009). Seeing causes and hearing gestures. In K. Hawley & F. Macpherson (Eds.), The admissible contents of experience (pp. 36–59). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, A. H., Zhou, Y., Gong, H. Q., & Liang, P. J. (2005). Luminance adaptation increased the contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells. NeuroReport, 16, 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2000). A theory of sentience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullison, A. (2010). Moral perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 12(2), 159–175.Google Scholar
  14. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ducasse, C. J. (1965). Causation: Perceived or only inferred? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 26, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eimas, P. D., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fish, W. (2013). High-level properties and visual experience. Philosophical Studies, 162, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao, T., & Scholl, B. L. (2011). Chasing vs. stalking: Interrupting the perception of animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 669–684.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Goldie, P. (2007). Seeing what is the kind thing to do: Perception and emotion in morality. Dialectica, 61(3), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, R., Beaver, J. D., & Calder, A. J. (2006). I thought you were looking at me—Direction specific aftereffects in gaze perception. Psychological Science, 17, 506–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kovacs, G., Zimmer, M., Banko, E., Harza, I., Antal, A., & Vidnyanszky, Z. (2006). Electrophysiological correlates of visual adaptation to faces and body parts in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 742–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kriegel, U. (2007). The phenomenologically manifest. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science, 6, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leopold, D. A., O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototypereferenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leopold, D. A., Rhodes, G., Muller, K. M., & Jeffery, L. (2005). The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272, 897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2013). Adaptation to faces and voices: Unimodal, cross-modal, and sex-specific effects. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2297–2305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macpherson, F. (2011). Introduction: The admissible contents of experience. In K. Hawley & F. Macpherson (Eds.), The admissible contents of experience (pp. 1–15). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Masrour, F. (2011). Is perceptual phenomenology thin? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83(2), 366–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNeill, W. E. S. (2012). On seeing that someone is angry. European Journal of Philosophy, 20(4), 575–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  31. Millar, A. (2000). The scope of perceptual knowledge. Philosophy, 75(291), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nanay, B. (2011). Do we see apples as edible? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nanay, B. (2012). Perceptual phenomenology. Philosophical Perspectives, 26(1), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Callaghan, C. (2011). Against hearing meanings. Philosophical Quarterly, 1(245), 783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Shaughnessy, B. (2000). Consciousness and the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Prinz, J. (2006). The content of sensation and perception. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Jaquet, E., Winkler, C., & Clifford, C. W. G. (2004). Orientation-contingent face aftereffects and implications for face-coding mechanisms. Current Biology, 14, 2119–2123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schweinberger, S. R., Kloth, N., & Jenkins, R. (2007). Are you looking at me? Neural correlates of gaze adaptation. NeuroReport, 18, 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schweinberger, S. R., Casper, C., Hauthal, N., Kaufmann, J. M., Kawahara, H., Kloth, N., et al. (2008). Auditory adaptation in voice perception. Current Biology, 18, 684–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwitzgebel, E. (2007). Do you have constant tactile experience of your feet in your shoes? Or is experience limited to what’s in attention? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(3), 5–35.Google Scholar
  42. Siegel, S. (2006). How can we discover the contents of experience? Southern Journal of Philosophy XLV, S1, 127–142.Google Scholar
  43. Siegel, S. (2009). The visual experience of causation. In K. Hawley & F. Macpherson (Eds.), The admissible contents of experience (pp. 36–59). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Siegel, S. (2010). The content of visual experience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Siegel, S., & Byrne, A. (forthcoming). Rich or thin? In B. Nanay (Ed.), Current controversies in philosophy of perception. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strawson, G. (1994/2010). Mental reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Toribio, J. (2015). Visual experience: Rich but impenetrable. Synthese,. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0889-8.Google Scholar
  49. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Webster, M. A., Kaping, D., Mizokami, Y., & Duhamel, P. (2004). Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature, 428, 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster, M. A., & Maclin, O. H. (1999). Figural aftereffects in the perception of faces. Psychonomic Bullettin & Review, 6, 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zahavi, D. (2007). Expression and empathy. In D. D. Hutto & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Folk psychology re-assessed (pp. 25–40). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zäske, R., Schweinberger, S. R., & Kawahara, H. (2010). Voice aftereffects of adaptation to speaker identity. Hearing Research, 268, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polonsky Academy FellowThe Van Leer Jerusalem InstituteJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations