The Illusion of Speech Clarity: How Our Brain Interprets Speech Sounds

  • Our brain controls the information we receive from speech sounds, creating an illusion of clarity.
  • When individual words are played in isolation, only about half of them are identifiable.
  • However, when listening to continuous speech, we fill in gaps and have the impression of clear speech.
  • ベストアンサー


You may think that we make no drastic change to speech sounds we get through the ear. In truth, the brain controls the amount of information within reasonable limits. Two researchers recorded spontaneous conversation without the participants' knowledge. The tape recording was then cut up into recordings of individual words. These individual word recordings were played to people who were asked to identify what they heard. Surprisingly, played in isolation, only about half of the words were identifiable. Yet, when we are listening to continuous speech, we do not have the impression that we are guessing and filling in gaps. The speech sounds clear. If the tape recordings are cut up into larger and larger parts, then the comprehensibility of the speech increases. The normal Clarity of speech is an illusion. The brain imposes an interpretation upon the speech that it hears and constructs hypotheses about the general context and meaning, which enables the interpretation of much of the input. So, when two people claim that they heard a speaker say something slightly different, it may be that both are accurate. Each of them may have heard, in terms of a higher-level interpretation by the brain, a different sentence. The perception of speech may sometimes be a rather automatic process. We may not be aware that we are monitoring conversations in which we are not taking part. At a party you may be able to identify your own name in a conversation across the room despite apparent unawareness of the content of the rest of the conversation. In order to recognize that your name was spoken, the brain must have been monitoring the progress and speech pattern of the conversation which was taking place elsewhere, even though you did not notice yourself doing this. It appears that we can have the capacity to monitor more than one chain of speech at once, though it may not be possible for us to monitor both to the same degree, or for us to have full conscious awareness of the content of both. We are also able to attend selectively to one conversation, even if there are loud competing conversations in the background, by Extracting the relevant information from the complex signal of mixed speech. This is referred to as the cocktail party phenomenon.

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • ありがとう数0


  • ベストアンサー
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率80% (9532/11848)

以下のとおりお答えします。(面白い内容でした。) (訳文) 私たちが耳を通じて聞き取る音声には極端な変動はない、とあなたは考えるかもしれません。 実際、脳は適切な制限の範囲内で、情報の量を制御します。 2人の研究者が、知らない参加者たちの自発的な会話を記録しました。 その録音体が、個々の単語の録音部分に切り分けられました。 これらの個々の言葉の録音を再生して人に聞かせ、聞こえたものを識別するように求めました。 驚いたことに、個別に分けて再生されると、約半分の単語しか識別されませんでした。 ところが、私たちは、連続した談話を聞いているとき、(聞き手が)推測で隙間を埋めているという印象は持ちません。 (なのに)談話は、はっきりと聞こえます。 録音体の分割(単位)が大きくなればなるほど、談話を理解できる度合いが向上します。 談話に関して、通常の「明瞭さ」(がある)というのは、ある種の錯覚です。 脳は、聞こえる談話についてある解釈を下し、一般的な文脈と意味について(こうではないかという)仮定を立てますが、そのことが多くの入力情報の解釈を可能にするのです。 ですから、一人の話し手の言うことを2人の人が少し違うように聞いたと主張する場合でも、両方とも正確である可能性があります。 2人のうちの各人が、より高いレベルでの脳による解釈という点で、異なる文を聞いたかも知れないからです。 談話の知覚は、時には自動的な処理の手順である場合があります。 私たちは、自分が参加していない会話内容には気づかないでいることもあり得ます。 パーティーでは、会場内の離れた会話の内容は明らかに認識していないにもかかわらず、自分の名前(が言われたときそれ)を聞き分けるができるかも知れません。 あなたの名前が話されたことを認識する場合、あなた自身は気付いていなかったにもかかわらず、脳はどこか他の場所で起こっていた会話の進行状況と談話の傾向を監視していたに違いありません。 一度に複数の(談話の)つながりを監視する能力はあると思われますが、両者を同じ程度に監視したり、両方の内容を完全に意識し認識したりすることはできないかも知れません。 私たちはまた、背景に競合する大声の会話がある場合でも、混合する談話の複雑な信号から関連情報を「抽出する」ことによって、1つの会話に選択的に参加することができます。 これは、「カクテルパーティー現象」と呼ばれています。

その他の回答 (1)


2301/5000 私たちが耳を通って発する音声には劇的な変化はないと考えるかもしれません。 実際、脳は妥当な範囲内で情報の量を制御します。 2人の研究者が参加者の知識なしに自発的な会話を記録した。 テープレコーディングは、個々の単語の録音に切り分けられました。 これらの個々の言葉の録音は、聞いたことを識別するように求められた人々に演奏されました。 驚くべきことに、孤立して演奏され、約半分の単語しか識別できなかった。 しかし、私たちが連続したスピーチを聞いているとき、私たちがギャップを推測して埋めているという印象はありません。 スピーチははっきりと聞こえる。 テープレコーディングが大きくなったり大きくなったりすると、スピーチの理解度が向上します。 通常の音声の明瞭さは錯覚です。 脳は、一般的な文脈と意味についての仮説を聞いて構築し、入力の多くの解釈を可能にするというスピーチの解釈を課す。 だから、2人の人が、話し手が少し違うと言うことを聞いたと主張すると、両方が正確である可能性があります。 彼らのそれぞれは、脳によるより高いレベルの解釈に関して、異なる文章を聞いたことがあるかもしれません。 スピーチの知覚は、時には自動プロセスである場合があります。 私たちが参加していない会話を監視していることに気付かないかもしれません。


  • 日本語訳で困っています。

    以下の英文の日本語訳がわかりません。だれか教えてください。お願いします。 (1)What is something that people may not want to admit? (2)That we have the same body parts as animals. (3)That we need animals to survive. (4)That animals are smarter than us. (5)That we can be trained like animals.

  • 日本語訳を教えて下さい。

    この英文の訳を教えて下さい。 Humans are by nature inquisitive: if we see something we don't understand, we have a need to find out, even if our investigations are damaging towards ourselves and the environment. But the destruction that could result if Onkalo were excavated in the future is much more extreme than simply rejecting the wishes of the dead or disrespecting their beliefs. In fact, if we don't think of the right ways to manage the problem, there may not be any humans in the future to judge whether what we did was right or wrong.

  • 日本語訳をして頂きたいです。

    However, while no considerations of principle stand in the way, whether it is actually possible for international organizations to sue or be sued may depend on issues of immunity, as well as on whether or not they have standing, which in turn may or may not depend on whether they are to be considered as having legal personality. 国際法の教科書なのですが、難しすぎてても足も出ません。よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします

    It appears that we can have the capacity to monitor more than one chain of speech at once, though it may not be possible for us to monitor both to the same degree, or for us to have full conscious awareness of the content of both. We are also able to attend selectively to one conversation, even if there are loud competing conversations in the background, by extracting the relevant information from the complex signal of mixed speech. 以上2文よろしくお願いします。

  • 助けてください 日本語訳でお願いします

    More and more these days we are interacting socially through indirect contact using new technologies like email and instant messaging, or texting. Many psychologists, linguists, and sociologists have lined up to condemn this new kind of communication, primarily because, as the American philosopher and linguist Jerrold Katz once articulated it. “To type is not to be human, to be in cyberspace is not to be real; all is pretense and alienation, a poor substitute for the real thing." You can't get more emphatic than that! Skeptics of the new technologies also argue that they encourage isolation, making it difficult for us to form genuine friendships. As Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) psychologist Sherry Turkle wrote recently, “The little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are We've become accustomed to a new way of ‘being alone together.

  • 日本語訳お願いします。

    Until now,we have used the terms “brain “and “mind “ somewhat loosely. For our purposes,we’ll set up couple of simple,straightforward definitions based on the ever-growing understanding of important mental processes. These definitions in particular express the ways in which the structures of the brain operate harmoniously to turn raw sensory date into an integrated perception of the world outside the skull: the brain is a collection of physical structures that gather and process sensory, and emotions that arise from the perceptual processes of the brain.

  • 日本語訳を!

    お願いします (14) For every crime the courts assigned a specific punishment. For example, the penalty for stealing cattle was amputation of the nose and ears, with hard labor for the thief and his wife and children. Floggings, assignment to labor gangs, and amputation of noses and ears were the most common criminal sentences. Those who were sentenced to work in the quarries and mines suffered a fate far worse; only half of them survived the trek through the desert. The Greek historian Didorus Siculus recorded Egyptian court judgments: "The penalty for perjury was death; the reasoning being that the perjurer was guilty of the two greatest sins, being impious towards the gods and breaking the most important pledge known to man." (15) These are not the stories that cover the walls of the tombs of kings and nobles. They are written in the court documents and stored in the prison archives. They are not inscribed on the bellies of beetles. Who we are, where we are going, and what we've done are not always what we want to announce to the world. Our dark side is not something we want named. But in real life even sweet-smelling roses have thorns. So it was with real life in ancient Egypt.

  • 日本語訳お願いします。

    Consider, for example, that the existence of a single human thought requires the highly complex interaction of hundreds of neurons. In order to separate mind from brain, it would be necessary to think of each neuron as something distinct from its function, which is a little like trying to separate the seawater that provides the substance of an ocean wave from the energy that gives the wave its shape and motion. The existence of the wave requires both elements: without energy, the wave would fall flat; without water, the wave energy would have no expression. In the same sense, it is not possible to separate individual neurons from their functions; if it were possible, then a thought could be feed from its neurological base, and the mind could be seen as something separate from the brain, a free-floating consciousness that could be considered a “soul “.

  • 日本語訳お願いします。

    In simpler terms, brain makes mind. Science can demonstrate no way for the mind to occur except as a result of the neurological functioning of the brain. Without the brain’s ability to process various types of input in highly sophisticated ways, the thoughts and feelings that constitute the mind would simply not exist. On the other hand, the brain’s irresistible drive to create the most vivid,sophisticated perceptions possible means that it cannot help but generate the thoughts and that are the basic elements of mind. Neurologically speaking,then, the mind cannot exist without the brain, and the brain cannot exist without striving to create the mind. The relationship of mind and brain is so intimately inked, in fact, that it seems most reasonable to consider the terms as two different aspects of the very same thing.

  • 日本語訳をお願いします。

    大事なメールが届いたのですが、英語のため理解できませんでした。 よろしければどなたか日本語訳をお願い致します。 We found that your app only provides a very limited set of features. It does not provide e-Book functionality such as bookmark and other appropriate features. While we value simplicity, we consider simplicity to be uncomplicated - not limited in features and functionality. We understand that there are no hard and fast rules to define useful or entertaining, but Apple and Apple customers expect apps to provide a really great user experience. Apps should provide valuable utility or entertainment, draw people in with by offering compelling capabilities or content, or enable people to do something they couldn't do before or in a way they couldn't do it before. We encourage you to review your app concept and evaluate whether you can incorporate additional content and features to be in compliance with the Guidelines. For information on the basics of creating great apps, watch the video The Ingredients of Great Apps.If you feel we didn't understand the features of your app, or that we missed key functionality, and your app was incorrectly rejected, you may appeal to the App Review Board.