Intelligent Design The human body

At Science Daily: Hearing is believing: Sounds can alter our visual perception

Spread the love

Audio cues can not only help us to recognize objects more quickly but can even alter our visual perception. That is, pair birdsong with a bird and we see a bird — but replace that birdsong with a squirrel’s chatter, and we’re not quite so sure what we’re looking at.

Shutterstock.com

“Your brain spends a significant amount of energy to process the sensory information in the world and to give you that feeling of a full and seamless perception,” said lead author Jamal R. Williams (University of California, San Diego) in an interview. “One way that it does this is by making inferences about what sorts of information should be expected.”

Although these “informed guesses” can help us to process information more quickly, they can also lead us astray when what we’re hearing doesn’t match up with what we expect to see.”

“Even when people are confident in their perception, sounds reliably altered them away from the true visual features that were shown.”

“When sounds are related to pertinent visual features, those visual features are prioritized and processed more quickly compared to when sounds are unrelated to the visual features. So, if you heard the sound of a birdsong, anything bird-like is given prioritized access to visual perception,” Williams explained. “We found that this prioritization is not purely facilitatory and that your perception of the visual object is actually more bird-like than if you had heard the sound of an airplane flying overhead.”

Taken together, these findings suggest that sounds alter visual perception only when audio and visual input occur at the same time, the researchers concluded.

“This process of recognizing objects in the world feels effortless and fast, but in reality it’s a very computationally intensive process,” Williams said. “To alleviate some of this burden, your brain is going to evaluate information from other senses.” Williams and colleagues would like to build on these findings by exploring how sounds may influence our ability to locate objects, how visual input may influence our perception of sounds, and whether audiovisual integration is an innate or learned process.

Complete article at Science Daily.

Researchers acknowledge, “This process of recognizing objects in the world feels effortless and fast, but in reality it’s a very computationally intensive process.” So many seemingly simple aspects of our existence are found to exhibit layered depth of complexity. What is evolution’s explanation for the these marvels of functional complexity? Can undirected processes bring about the successful, “computationally intensive process” of object recognition?

6 Replies to “At Science Daily: Hearing is believing: Sounds can alter our visual perception

  1. 1
    Sir Giles says:

    So many seemingly simple aspects of our existence are found to exhibit layered depth of complexity. What is evolution’s explanation for the these marvels of functional complexity?

    I don’t know. What is ID’s explanation? Saying that something is designed without any details on how the design is implemented is no different that “poof”.

  2. 2
    relatd says:

    SG at 1,

    It seems that your only real ‘argument’ is: I don’t like ID. Grumble, grumble. I don’t like ID.

    How the design was implemented? That is not the question. the question is: Is there evidence of design in living things? The answer is yes. The next question: Is unguided evolution capable of producing the living things we see around us? The answer is no.

    My point is this: More research reveals greater and greater complexity and complex interactions inside different cells. This level of complexity is so high that unguided evolution would have had no time to stumble on the correct answers.

  3. 3
    Caspian says:

    SG @1:
    “I don’t know. What is ID’s explanation? Saying that something is designed without any details on how the design is implemented is no different that “poof”.”

    The important first step is to be willing to acknowledge that intelligent design is evident in the complexity of living things. This is a valid scientific conclusion. To say it’s possible without intelligent design is not a valid scientific conclusion, since it lacks correlation with any observation of any other natural process that can produce such a depth of functional complexity.
    The 2nd step, if one is willing to go further and ask, “Who is the designer?” and “How did the designer implement the physical design?” is to branch into theology. As I said in one of my earlier posts, some people don’t accept ID because of bad theology. A view of God as given in the Bible answers the first question, and the nature of God as given in the Bible is answer enough for the 2nd question. A biblically grounded theological view of God would include the understanding that God is fully capable of bringing about living systems out of nothing or out of dust. The fact that such supernatural ability is far beyond our understanding is not an argument against its possibility, it is to be expected within the context of the transcendent nature of God.

  4. 4
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    Can undirected processes bring about the successful, “computationally intensive process” of object recognition?

    If the question is, “do we have a good theory of brain evolution?” then the answer is “yes.”

    If that’s not the question, then what is?

  5. 5

    Readers might enjoy a piece I put together awhile back which couples the audio and visual experience.
    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/ive-grown-accustomed-to-your-face/

  6. 6

    Of related note, and quite ominous, are the tyrannical uses of high-tech that the Communist Chinese government is imposing on the Chinese population.
    Here is a report I penned a few years back:

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/a-dramatically-changed-world-part-3-but-has-human-nature-changed-china/

Leave a Reply