What determines auditory similarity? The effect of stimulus group and methodology.

Two experiments on the internal representation of auditory stimuli compared the pairwise and grouping methodologies as means of deriving similarity judgements. A total of 45 undergraduate students participated in each experiment, judging the similarity of short auditory stimuli, using one of the methodologies. The experiments support and extend Bonebright's (1996) findings, using a further 60 stimuli. Results from both methodologies highlight the importance of category information and acoustic features, such as root mean square (RMS) power and pitch, in similarity judgements. Results showed that the grouping task is a viable alternative to the pairwise task with N > 20 sounds whilst highlighting subtle differences, such as cluster tightness, between the different task results. The grouping task is more likely to yield category information as underlying similarity judgements

Wine and music (III): so what if music influences the taste of the wine?

A growing body of evidence, both anecdotal and scientifically rigorous, now points to the fact that what people taste when evaluating a wine, not to mention how much they enjoy the experience, can be influenced by the specifics of any music that happens to be playing at the same time. The question that we wish to address here is ‘So what?’ Why should anyone care that music (or, for that matter, specially composed soundscapes) exert(s) a crossmodal influence over the wine-tasting experience? ‘Why not just drink great wine and forget about the music?’ a sceptic might ask. Here, we outline a number of the uses that such research findings have been put to in the marketplace, in experiential events, in artistic performances, and in terms of furthering our theoretical understanding of those factors that influence the tasting experience. We also highlight how the latest in technology (think sensory apps and hyperdirectional loudspeakers, not to mention digitally augmented glassware) augurs well for those wanting to deliver the most stimulating, the most memorable, and certainly the most multisensory of tasting experiences in the years to come. Demonstrations of sound’s influence on wine perception will most likely be applicable to a variety of other drinks and foods too. Ultimately, the argument is forwarded that there are many reasons, both theoretical and applied, as to why we should all care about the fact that what we listen to can change the sensory-discriminative, the descriptive, and the hedonic attributes of what we taste

The representation of conceptual knowledge: visual, auditory and olfactory imagery compared with semantic processing.

Two experiments comparing imaginative processing in different modalities and semantic processing were carried out to investigate the issue of whether conceptual knowledge can be represented in different format. Participants were asked to judge the similarity between visual images, auditory images, and olfactory images in the imaginative block, if two items belonged to the same category in the semantic block. Items were verbally cued in both experiments. The degree of similarity between the imaginative and semantic items was changed across experiments. Experiment 1 showed that the semantic processing was faster than the visual and the auditory imaginative processing, whereas no differentiation was possible between the semantic processing and the olfactory imaginative processing. Experiment 2 revealed that only the visual imaginative processing could be differentiated from the semantic processing in terms of accuracy. These results showed that the visual and auditory imaginative processing can be differentiated from the semantic processing, although both visual and auditory images strongly rely on semantic representations. On the contrary, no differentiation is possible within the olfactory domain. Results are discussed in the frame of the imagery debate