Advertisement

Comprehending the Neurological Substratum of Paraverbal Communications: The Invention of SplitSpec Technology

  • Stanford W. GregoryJr.
  • Will Kalkhoff
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

An earlier book chapter (Gregory 1999) reviewed the specific background of our investigations into the social significance and neurology of the lower speech frequency in human communication. This lower speech frequency, termed the paraverbal frequency (beneath.5 kHz), was found to convey important nonverbal social information, and the previously published chapter outlined the methodology and results of numerous experiments showing how the paraverbal signal differs from the verbal; specifically, how it acts as an elemental mechanism of social status accommodation and social convergence between conversation partners. The present chapter will continue from where the last chapter left off and aims first to merge our past results and observations with a theoretical account making use of pertinent findings from physical anthropology, cognitive psychology, and neurology. With the theoretical background established, we will then review how our research led to the development of a technological innovation called “SplitSpec Technology,” and how this innovation will fit into the future of human electronic communications.

Keywords

Speech Signal Interactive Task Dichotic Listening Task Completion Time Visual Channel 
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. Bradshaw, J. L., & Nettleton, N. C. (1983). Human cerebral asymmetry. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Cherry, C. (1957). On human communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Curry, F. K. (1967). A comparison of left-handed and right-handed subjects on verbal and non-verbal dichotic listening tasks. Cortex, 3, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1970). The bisected brain. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  6. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1985). The social brain. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication – Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain, 123, 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geffen, G., Bradshaw, J. L., & Wallace, G. (1971). Interhemispheric effects on reaction time to verbal and nonverbal visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  10. Giles, H., Smith, P. M., & Patricia, M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In G. Howard, N. Robert, & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The next decade and beyond. In Communication yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 13–48). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, S. W., Jr. (1994). Sounds of power and deference: Acoustic analysis of macro social constraints on micro interaction. Sociological Perspectives, 37, 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregory, S. W., Jr. (1999). Navigating the sound stream of human social interaction. In D. D. Franks & T. S. Smith (Eds.), Mind, brain, and society (pp. 247–285). Stamford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, S. W., Jr., & Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting U.S. Presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory, S. W., Jr., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory, S. W., Jr., Webster, S. W., & Huang, G. (1993). Voice pitch and amplitude convergence as a metric of quality in dyadic interviews. Language and Communication, 13, 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, S. W., Jr., Dagan, K. A., & Webster, S. (1997). Evaluating the relation of vocal accommodation in conversation partners’ fundamental frequencies to perceptions of communication quality. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, S. W., Jr., Green, B. E., Carrothers, R. M., Dagan, K. A., & Webster, S. W. (2001). Verifying the primary of voice fundamental frequency in social status accommodation. Language and Communication, 21, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory, S. W., Jr., Kalkhoff, W., Harkness, S. K., & Paull, J. L. (2009). Targeted high and low speech frequency bands to right and left ears respectively improve task performance and perceived sociability in dyadic conversations. Laterality: Asymetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 14, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauser, M. D., Agnetta, B., & Perez, C. (1998). Orienting asymmetries in rhesus monkeys: The effects of time domain changes on acoustic perception. Animal Behavior, 56, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heise, D. R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  22. Hewes, G. W. (1973). Primate communication and the gestural origin of language. Current Anthropology, 14, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalkhoff, W., & Gregory, S. W., Jr. (2008). Beyond the issues: Nonverbal vocal communication, power rituals, and ‘Rope-A-Dopes’ in the 2008 presidential debates. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14, 39–51.Google Scholar
  24. Kalkhoff, W., Gregory, S. W., Jr., & Melamed, D. (2009). Effects of dichotically enhanced electronic communication on crash risk and performance during simulated driving. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimura, D. (1961). Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15, 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimura, D. (1967). Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex, 3, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kimura, D. (1973a). The asymmetry of the human brain. Scientific American, 228, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kimura, D. (1973b). Manual activity during speaking. I. Right handers. Neuropsychologia, 11, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kramer, E. (1964). Elimination of verbal cues in judgments of emotion from voice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lieberman, P. (1975). On the origins of language: An introduction to the evolution of human speech. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. May, B., Moody, D. B., & Stebbins, W. C. (1988). The significant features of Japanese macaque Coo sounds. Animal Behavior, 36, 1432–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McManus, C. (2002). Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, D. C. (1977). Handbook of research design and social measurement. New York: Mckay.Google Scholar
  35. Milner, B., Taylor, L., & Sperry, R. W. (1968). Lateralized suppression of dichotically presented digits after commissural section in man. Science, 161, 184–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Oldfield, R. C. (1970). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American Anthropologist, 66, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  40. Partridge, B. L. (1982). The structure and function of fish schools. Scientific American, 246, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patterson, M. L. (1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenzweig, M. R. (1951). Representations of the two ears at the auditory cortex. American Journal of Physiology, 167, 147–158.Google Scholar
  43. Sampson, E. E. (1971). Social psychology and contemporary society. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Sarles, H. B. (1975). A human ethological approach to communication: Ideas in transit around the Cartesian impasse. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of behavior in face-to- face interaction. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Shubin, N. (2008). Your inner fish: A journey into the 3.5 billion history of the human body. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  46. Sperry, R. W. (1959). The growth of nerve circuits. Scientific American, 201, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1981). Left brain right brain. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  48. Starkweather, J. A. (1956a). Content-free speech as a source of information about the speaker. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Starkweather, J. A. (1956b). The communication value of content-free speech. The American Journal of Psychology, 69, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zoloth, S. R., Petersen, M. R., Beecher, M. D., Green, S., Marler, P., Moody, D. B., & Stebbins, W. (1979). Species-specific perceptual processing of vocal sounds by monkeys. Science, 204, 870–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations