yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (11/19/90)
In article <11156@milton.u.washington.edu> eliot@phoenix.princeton.edu (Eliot Ha ndelman) writes: The concept that we're "visually oriented" is shallow and, I think, probably incorrect: consult any textbook of auditory disorders (Sacks has come out with one called "Hearing voices.") Visual orientations are, to me, essentiall y distance-preserving modalites of selfhood which express an unwillingness to jeopardize one's detachment from the world It's unclear to me what this means -- could you elaborate? -- a detachment which usenet, a visual medium, promotes, hence its peculiar psychology. I disagree. Usenet is *not* a visual medium -- it is a symbolic medium. This is an important distinction -- it's the difference between the experience of watching a movie and the experience of reading a book. Visual virtual reality, like every other form of human communication (from physical contact to e-mail) would have it's own psychological peculiarities and pathologies, but these would likely be very different from those of Usenet. Not to undermine seeing, of course: but the blind do have it easier than the deaf. Is this true in all domains? My (admittedly non-expert) guess would be that the blind would have a more difficult time of getting around in the world, as well as visualizing complex spatial/geometric relations, while the deaf might have more problems in communications and social interactions. The deaf, unless regimented into an appropriate educational proghram early on, may have a highly underdeveloped sense of time and of selfhood. Could you elaborate? Why don't visual perceptions of motion/change also give the individual an idea of temporal relations? My intuition would be that the blind would more difficulty than the deaf in separating their concept of themselves from that of the world. Bringing this discussion back to VR, I think that the focus of VR has been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). To put this in more psychological terms -- you can extract much more detailed spatial information about your world by looking around with your ears plugged than you can by listening with your eyes closed. On the other hand, combining sounds and/or music with visual images does have a great deal of potential -- especially in terms of aesthetics and entertainment. Some music videos, for example, show how the most basic audio/visual technology can be used to create effective combinations of images and music (regardless of whether you happen to like MTV :-). It's up to virtual reality to explore the potential of adding the element of interactivity to the experience of audio/visual sensations... -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
garry@cs-sun-fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Garry Beirne) (11/21/90)
> Bringing this discussion back to VR, I think that the focus of VR has > been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich > domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is > two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). To > put this in more psychological terms -- you can extract much more > detailed spatial information about your world by looking around with > your ears plugged than you can by listening with your eyes closed. Arguments have been made that vision is *NOT* more information-rich than sound. Sound is *definitely NOT* one-dimensional. The problem, is too many people *believe* that sound is less important than images because of our cultural bias towards a greater conciousness of image. Sound has been relegated to the subconscious (of course I am generalizing) in our culture, but that does not in any way reduce it's potential as a medium for communicating important information. Try watching a movie without the sound. Even in these cases, where the sound is an apparent supplement to the image, the image takes on a completely different meaning with sound than it does without sound. If you are sitting in a dark room, a good composer can affect your mood and emotions *much* more effectively than a good imagemaker. With regards to any references about MTV, I think we should be aware of the difference between the crass exploitation of image for (predominantly) mindless entertainment and the well-crafted use of image for expression of useful information. (Ooops, lots of assumptions on my part...) One of my premises is we should look to our aural senses for methods of creating *truly* virtual worlds that are effective and expressive. (By *truly* virtual worlds, I guess I mean those that do not attempt to recreate the real world. Rather, it refers to those that describe new worlds, new vehicles of expressing information to and gathering information from the occupant; those that create new cognitive models of what the 'world' is and how it works.) Sound may have a distinct advantage over image for novel virtual environments because our culture tends to have a less defined notion of the meaning of sound than of image. We won't have the same expectations, due to preconditioning, in an aural world than we will in a visual world. Now, if I can only *prove* my hunches, we might have something.... I agree with Brian Yamauchi: the net is *NOT* a visual medium....it *is* symbolic But, that raises the question of what images are NOT symbolic ? How do we extract meaning if we don't perform some kind of interpretation? This is, I expect, a well discussed topic in the visual arts. Are there any readers out there who are more fluent on the topic out there ? -- Garry Beirne Box 1020 Phone: (403) 762-6641 Head, Computer Media Banff, Alberta FAX: (403) 762-6659 Media Arts Canada UUCP: garry@cpsc.UCalgary.CA The Banff Centre T0L 0C0 PAN: BANFF
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) (11/27/90)
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >[...] I think that the focus of VR has >been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich >domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is >two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). To >put this in more psychological terms -- you can extract much more >detailed spatial information about your world by looking around with >your ears plugged than you can by listening with your eyes closed. This is more likely due to the relatively poor hearing of humans. Other animals (owls, cats, etc.) are able to do much more with their hearing than we can. Some animals, such as bats, rely almost exclusively on hearing to define shapes and objects. I am not sure how much practicality this has for VR (unless one wants to stick their pet in a VR ... I can't see my cat being very happy with stereo goggles and powergloves on! ;-). However, do not underestimate the complexity of sound; music and spoken language both depend heavily on it, and spoken language (especially in oral traditions) can be amazingly complex and rich. Another point that I would like to touch on is that sound is not simply "one-dimensional" as is implied in the above quote. There is a strong temporal dimension as well. For example, there is no music if there is no temporal dimension. Much of the complexity of sound is due completely to the temporal aspects. Another example: language would not exist without the temporal aspect of sound. I think that many interface designers (whether it be GUI's or VR's) think sound is too simple, and neglect to include it, which is a shame. -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 We carry in our hearts the true country, Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene And that cannot be stolen. lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu We follow in the steps of our ancestry, uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka And that cannot be broken. -- Midnight Oil
mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mukesh Patel) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov20.205922.12716@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> garry@cs-sun-fsc.cpsc.ucalg ary.ca (Garry Beirne) writes: > >> Bringing this discussion back to VR, I think that the focus of VR has >> been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich >> domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is >> two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). > >Arguments have been made that vision is *NOT* more information-rich >than sound. Sound is *definitely NOT* one-dimensional. The problem, >is too many people *believe* that sound is less important than images >because of our cultural bias towards a greater conciousness of image. Yes but why is there a cultural bias in the first place. If you dont attempt to answer that question than the above is no more than a trivial restatement of the obvious. >Try watching a movie without the sound. Read the original posting more carefully - the point is that visual medium is richer (note the comparative). The fact that due to this bias we may be in danger of ignoring the major role of sound in VR is a different issue. >If you are sitting in a >dark room, a good composer can affect your mood and emotions *much* more >effectively than a good imagemaker. This may be true though it does not therefore conclusively prove that sound is more informative; merely that in a certain situation it is >But, that raises the question of what images are NOT symbolic ? How >do we extract meaning if we don't perform some kind of interpretation? >This is, I expect, a well discussed topic in the visual arts. Also this whole issue has been exhaustively (sic) debated in Cognitive Psychology. Look at the literature on image v symbolic (mental) representation. This was the main focus of interested before processing became the "in thing", and still is in some backwaters (go ahead flame me if you disagree with this description :-) of Cogpsy. >Are there any readers out there who are more fluent on the topic out there? Not me :-) Mukesh Patel
cs225fg@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dillinger) (12/01/90)
In article <12072@milton.u.washington.edu> mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mukesh Pate l) writes: > > >>If you are sitting in a >>dark room, a good composer can affect your mood and emotions *much* more >>effectively than a good imagemaker. I would have to disagree with this. After considering that music is composed for the listening pleasure of others, I would think that the composers other main goal would be to influence the mood and emotions of the listenener. On the other hand, since visual mediums such as television and movies can send so much more direct information (ie: speach, ideas, etc.) They must not rely so heavily on soley influencing the emotions (although many do..). My point being that if an image maker (lets say Martin Scorcese (sp?)) wanted to soley affect the mood of the person watching, with no consideration for meaning he could do so much more effectively. To elicit sadness he could have a scene with a baby being dragged from his screaming mother. Happiness could be the sight of a child's eyes upon seeing the presents santa has brought. I have broad musical tastes and have listened to a great deal of classical music. While I do find my emotions being affected, I have never cried during a concert nor have I felt a chill run down my spine as I have while watching certain images.... Steve Dillinger U of Illinois at UC sdillinger@uiuc.edu
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) (12/02/90)
In article <12072@milton.u.washington.edu> mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mukesh Pate l) writes: > > >In article <1990Nov20.205922.12716@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> garry@cs-sun-fsc.cpsc.ucal g >ary.ca (Garry Beirne) writes: >> >>> Bringing this discussion back to VR, I think that the focus of VR has >>> been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich >>> domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is >>> two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). >> >>Arguments have been made that vision is *NOT* more information-rich >>than sound. Sound is *definitely NOT* one-dimensional. The problem, >>is too many people *believe* that sound is less important than images >>because of our cultural bias towards a greater conciousness of image. > >Yes but why is there a cultural bias in the first place. If you dont >attempt to answer that question than the above is no more than a trivial >restatement of the obvious. >>But, that raises the question of what images are NOT symbolic ? How >>do we extract meaning if we don't perform some kind of interpretation? >>This is, I expect, a well discussed topic in the visual arts. This thread is starting to set off my bullfudge meter. Look. The bandwidth of the optic nerve has been estimated at 1 Mb/s - and this has already been highly compressed by the retina. (I am not an expert here, and I think this figure is slightly low - can anyone correct me?) Perfect sound can be duplicated by 16-bit samples at 44Khz. This is 44,000 * 16= 704Kb/s, _uncompressed_. So by any quantitative standard, vision has greater bandwidth than sound. If sound had a greater bandwidth than vision, we'd all have headphones on our computers instead of monitors. Sound can convey some information that is unconveyable visually (eg voice tone); vision can convey information that sound cannot. But if you want to start comparing the two quantitatively, you'd better talk in quantitative terms. Curtis "I tried living in the real world Instead of a shell But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths
a1174@mindlink.UUCP (Peter MacDougall) (12/02/90)
There are a number of arguments pro and con for which sensory modality is most important in our perception of the world. I would not underestimate the information gathering abilities of the senses other than sight. The nose is responsive to more than simply 7 basic compounds, we are able to identify responses to 7 so far perhaps, but we do respond to more than 7 types of aerosolized compounds and chemicals. With hearing, it is not as "conscious" as sight, and therefore we tend to dismiss it as less important than sight. I believe in most cases, people who could once hear and are now deaf, would prefer to be blind rather than deaf. Much of the sound coming into our ears is processed unconsciously, and we respond to it. Without the vital atmosphere of noise in virtual reality, it will seem like a closed space. Also, sound is vital for voice communication (probably the main reason a person might prefer being blind to being deaf) which can provide far more information quicker than visual text reading, and perhaps even straight graphics--if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a sound? Probably though, the most important sensing system in the body is simple Touch. It has the most input, the most brain devoted to its reception, organization, and interpretation, and is more vital than either sight or hearing. Loss of touch can kill you quicker than deafness or blindness. All in my humble opinion of course. Peter_MacDougall@Mindlink.uucp
eliot@phoenix.princeton.edu (Eliot Handelman) (12/03/90)
In article <12146@milton.u.washington.edu> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writ
es:
;This thread is starting to set off my bullfudge meter. Look. The bandwidth
;of the optic nerve has been estimated at 1 Mb/s - and this has already been
;highly compressed by the retina. (I am not an expert here, and I think this
;figure is slightly low - can anyone correct me?) Perfect sound can be
;duplicated by 16-bit samples at 44Khz. This is 44,000 * 16= 704Kb/s,
;_uncompressed_. So by any quantitative standard, vision has greater
;bandwidth than sound.
Your measures are incompatible. Vision must be compared to hearing, not
to sound. Sound must be compared to light. A sound of 2,000 dynes/square
cm, which is painfully loud, delivers less energy than the energy of
sunlight falling on the ear, less than 1/100th of a watt per square cm.
All this shows is that transmitting sound requires far less energy than
transmitting light, but so what?jdunn@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Jeff Dunn) (12/03/90)
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: > >This thread is starting to set off my bullfudge meter. Look. The bandwidth >of the optic nerve has been estimated at 1 Mb/s - and this has already been >highly compressed by the retina. (I am not an expert here, and I think this >figure is slightly low - can anyone correct me?) Perfect sound can be >duplicated by 16-bit samples at 44Khz. This is wrong. Audio compact disks have a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz, which has show to be a little low. Audiophiles have long complained about the lack of proper high-frequency response. In fact, I know a symphonic flautist who says that he can't tell the different types of flutes from a CD recording. This is probably why we have 8x oversampling CD players and green pens to paint the edges of our disks. The studio standard for digital audio is 88.2 KHz, although I believe the resolution is still 14 bits, just like CDs. Also, those 14 bits are LINEAR, you can get the same sound quality from few bits (12?) by using a logarithmic scaling. Beyond that, the concept "perfect sound" is hard to define - this is a qualititative judgement that varies from ear to ear. -jd jdunn@polyslo.calpoly.edu -- TALK HARD
brucec%phoebus.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bruce Cohen;;50-662;LP=A;) (12/04/90)
In article <12146@milton.u.washington.edu> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writ es: > > If sound had a greater bandwidth than vision, we'd all have headphones on > our computers instead of monitors. Sound can convey some information that > is unconveyable visually (eg voice tone); vision can convey information that > sound cannot. But if you want to start comparing the two quantitatively, > you'd better talk in quantitative terms. > All true, but unfortunately all this comparison of bandwidth and power is somewhat irrelevant to humans' ability to extract information from light and sound. we certainly can't get > 0.5 megabits/sec. out of the sounds we here, nor can we get > 1.0 megabits/sec from the light which falls on our eyes. Those are just the inputs to extremely sophisticated signal processing system, which have evolved to throw away the vast majority of the sensory information coming in, so we can concentrate on the data which are most likely to be meaningful to our survival. I've heard estimates that we are capable of actually acquiring about 100 bits / sec of useful data from all of our senses. I won't vouch for the number because I don't know the methodology used to reach it, but I'll bet it's not off by more than an order of magnitude or two. The real reason that we tend to favor sight as a sense is not, IMHO cultural at all, but based on the biological fact that we have, in the course of evolution, dedicated far more of our nervous systems to image signal processing than to sound signal processing. As a result, we're capable of extracting a broader range of information ata higher acquisition rate from sight than hearing. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Speaker-to-managers, aka Bruce Cohen, Computer Research Lab email: brucec@tekchips.labs.tek.com Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc. phone: (503)627-5241 M/S 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077
hughes@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes) (12/04/90)
In article <12145@milton.u.washington.edu> cs225fg@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dillinger) writes: [quoting someone else] >>If you are sitting in a dark room, a good composer can affect your >>mood and emotions *much* more effectively than a good imagemaker. >I would have to disagree with this. [...] [If] an image maker [...] >wanted to soley affect the mood of the person watching, with no >consideration for meaning he could do so much more effectively. [...] >To elicit sadness he could have a scene with a baby being dragged >from his screaming mother. Happiness could be the sight of a child's >eyes upon seeing the presents santa has brought. This technique is exactly what the first deconstructionists did with film--and that was with silent films. There has been a lot of thought about these issues; it would do well for those interested to look some of it up. While film, as a medium, might not be considered a reality in the sense of the illusion of space, it certainly is a reality insofar as it creates an illusion of a different narrative and causative realm. The parallels of film and VR are significant not in any technical sense but at the highest level of design of the interface. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu
hughes@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes) (12/04/90)
In article <12146@milton.u.washington.edu> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: >The bandwidth of the optic nerve has been estimated at 1 Mb/s >[... etc.] So by any quantitative standard, vision has greater >bandwidth than sound. >If sound had a greater bandwidth than vision, we'd all have >headphones on our computers instead of monitors. [...] But if you >want to start comparing the two quantitatively, you'd better talk in >quantitative terms. There are two different meanings of the the word information here. The first is information in the sense of the entropy of a communications channel. The second is the original sense, namely, that which informs a persons or that which a person learns or that knowledge which a person acquires. The first is measurable; the second is not. It is certainly true that the bandwidth of a communications channel required to simulate a visual sensorium is larger than that to simulate an aural sensorium. What was being discussed, however, was information in the second sense. Per unit time, does audible or visible sense data provide more information? The answer to this question is not at all obvious to me. A linguistics friend once told me about some experiments done with blind children, who equipped with a certain sound source, developed echo-location ability. In some cases the ability was retained even after the sound source was no longer in use. Unfortunately I have no references of any sort, i.e. take with a grain of salt. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) (12/04/90)
In article <HUGHES.90Dec3135840@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU> hughes@maelstrom.Berkele y.EDU (Eric Hughes) writes: > >In article <12146@milton.u.washington.edu> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis >Yarvin) writes: >>The bandwidth of the optic nerve has been estimated at 1 Mb/s >>[... etc.] So by any quantitative standard, vision has greater >>bandwidth than sound. > >>If sound had a greater bandwidth than vision, we'd all have >>headphones on our computers instead of monitors. [...] But if you >>want to start comparing the two quantitatively, you'd better talk in >>quantitative terms. > >There are two different meanings of the the word information here. >The first is information in the sense of the entropy of a >communications channel. The second is the original sense, namely, >that which informs a persons or that which a person learns or that >knowledge which a person acquires. >The first is measurable; the second is not. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree completely. What my original posting was complaining about was people who are confusing the two. >What was being discussed, however, was information in the second >sense. Per unit time, does audible or visible sense data provide more >information? NO, NO, NO! You miss it completely. If something isn't measurable, it's meaningless to talk about "more" or "less" of it. It's completely undefined. So all you're going to get out of such a discussion is vast clouds of fog. We know the following: + Vision is a very useful source of information(2). + Sound is a very useful source of information(2). But if you try to get farther, you're lost - unless you've defined "more" and "less" with respect to information(2). I suggest that everyone who has posted to this thread post back and define what they mean by these terms - and then we can have a real discussion. Curtis "I tried living in the real world Instead of a shell But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths
eliot@phoenix.princeton.edu (Eliot Handelman) (12/04/90)
In article <4009@mindlink.UUCP> a1174@mindlink.UUCP (Peter MacDougall) writes:
;With hearing, it is not as "conscious" as sight, and therefore we tend
;to dismiss it as less important than sight.
This isn't the kind of conclusion that I wanted to propose. The question is
not "which is more important, seeing or hearing," but rather, "what is the
auditory equivalent of vision," and "what is the visual equivalent of
audition." The problem here is how to extend the senses and develop ever more
powerful media, not to decide which of the senses is worth "dismissing."herrickd@uunet.UU.NET (daniel lance herrick) (12/14/90)
In article <12146@milton.u.washington.edu>, cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) wri tes: > In article <12072@milton.u.washington.edu> mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mukesh Pa te > l) writes: >> >> >>In article <1990Nov20.205922.12716@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> garry@cs-sun-fsc.cpsc.uca l > g >>ary.ca (Garry Beirne) writes: >>> >>>> Bringing this discussion back to VR, I think that the focus of VR has >>>> been on the visual modality because vision is a more information-rich >>>> domain than sound. Sound is a one-dimensional medium while vision is >>>> two-dimensional (two-and-a-half-dimensional for stereo vision). >>> >>>Arguments have been made that vision is *NOT* more information-rich >>>than sound. Sound is *definitely NOT* one-dimensional. The problem, >>>is too many people *believe* that sound is less important than images >>>because of our cultural bias towards a greater conciousness of image. >> >>Yes but why is there a cultural bias in the first place. If you dont >>attempt to answer that question than the above is no more than a trivial >>restatement of the obvious. > >>>But, that raises the question of what images are NOT symbolic ? How >>>do we extract meaning if we don't perform some kind of interpretation? >>>This is, I expect, a well discussed topic in the visual arts. > The visual media are in some ways limiting. The best presentation of this idea that I have read: When the radio announcer said, "... and a fiery horse with the speed of light ....", children all over America saw a fiery horse with the speed of light. When the television announcer said, "... and a fiery horse with the speed of light ....", we saw this silly guy in a mask on a gray horse (television was monochrome, back then). There was a lot more communication moving through the audio only channel than moves through the audio-video channel. But it was more work to receive that communication because it communicated by stimulating the receiver to do great inventive work, while the current channel does everything for the observer. A book provides a rather low bandwidth communication channel compared with the numbers available for the possible visual bandwidth. To respond to one of the comments I deleted from the previous postings, I have shed a tear or two over a book (never one with pictures in it), and a rousing performance of The Star Spangled Banner has made something happen in my chest more than once. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com
herrickd@uunet.UU.NET (daniel lance herrick) (12/14/90)
>>What was being discussed, however, was information in the second >>sense. Per unit time, does audible or visible sense data provide more >>information? > > NO, NO, NO! You miss it completely. If something isn't measurable, it's > meaningless to talk about "more" or "less" of it. It's completely > undefined. So all you're going to get out of such a discussion is vast > clouds of fog. There are some people who are very good at communication through an audio-visual channel (Bellini or Filini [i cant remember], for example). There are some people who are very good at communication through an audio only channel. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre of the Air comes to mind. I think it is possible to determine which moves a person more. Communicates more effectively with one member of the audience. When we do make that determination, we get different answers from different people. (Even after retraining to comprehend the audio only channel.) I respond better to radio or print. But one or two films have come close. I don't watch very many. (So maybe I need training to that medium.) But compare the best work done for each medium. And anticipate the individual differences in the audience. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com
brucec%phoebus.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bruce Cohen;;50-662;LP=A;) (12/18/90)
In article <12954@milton.u.washington.edu> abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!herrickd@u unet.UU.NET (daniel lance herrick) writes: > The visual media are in some ways limiting. The best presentation of > this idea that I have read: > > When the radio announcer said, "... and a fiery horse with the speed > of light ....", children all over America saw a fiery horse with the > speed of light. > > When the television announcer said, "... and a fiery horse with the > speed of light ....", we saw this silly guy in a mask on a gray > horse (television was monochrome, back then). > > There was a lot more communication moving through the audio only > channel than moves through the audio-video channel. But it was > more work to receive that communication because it communicated > by stimulating the receiver to do great inventive work, while > the current channel does everything for the observer. This is the distinguishing character of a *symbolic* medium, that it can encode a great deal of information in a few symbols, as long as the symbols' meanings are agreed upon by both sender and receiver. As several people have already said in this thread, that doesn't support the original contention that *audio* has more information content than video, or sound more than sight (make whatever distinctions you want here). Symbols can be transmitted via any medium: the same words could have been sent by close-captioning rather than an announcer's voice; if there were no picture, the impact would have been roughly the same as the radio transmission (minus the additional information of the emotional stress and the musical background in the audio). It's important in this discussion to differentiate between information being explicitly transmitted to one human (directly by a human or indirectly through some recorded medium), and information being gathered by a human from an environment. This is the difference between getting information by reading a book and by searching a database. The transmission of explicit information is the signature of most existing communication media, from books to television. VR and its enabling technologies make the gathering of information from pre-established (and possibly ever-changing) environments a practical alternative to direct media. The purpose of providing many sensory modes simultaneously is to give the "reader" of a VR environment as many clues as possible in finding and understanding the information stored there, and to make the access easy for people with different kinds of knowledge-retaining mechanisms (that is, to help both people with predominantly visual memories and those with auditory memories). These clues are not provided by symbolic communication, but by sensory stimuli like the image of a chair, the sound of a sigh, the touch of a hand. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Speaker-to-managers, aka Bruce Cohen, Computer Research Lab email: brucec@tekchips.labs.tek.com Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc. phone: (503)627-5241 M/S 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077
sfp@mars.ornl.gov (Phil Spelt) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun21.060645.375@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.wash ington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >In article <1991Jun21.055051.28165@milton.u.washington.edu> dtj@sumac.cray. >com (Dean Johnson) writes [incorporating my earlier posting, in part]: > >>|> I am sure the domestic VR community would welcome Cray taking a >>|> lead in bringing the North American community together. >> >>I seriously doubt that this a possibility while "Sensory Modalities" and >>other such trivia is all the rage, and nuts-and-bolts discussions like >>"what are the hardware requirements?" are shunted to mailing lists (Hi Alan!). >>If it weren't for the powerglove being so enigmatic, there would be no >>"reality" flowing into this newsgroup, IMHO. Sorry to be so pragmatic. >> >> >> Dean Johnson >> Tools, Libraries, and Commands Group >> Cray Research Inc. Eagan,MN (612) 683-5880 >> > >Interestingly, it's Fujitsu and Hitachi, names no doubt familiar to many >in the supercomputer business, who are catalyzing the Japanese VR movement. > > [Deleted stuff about PowerGlove mailing list.] > >As to why "sensory modalities" are trivia, or why Cray won't emulate its >overseas counterparts, I'm afraid I don't understand the response. > I must agree with the Moderator on this point. We are beginning a new effort in VR here at ORNL, in which I am advocating an"Ecological" approach. The term is not new, nor are the concepts whic underlie it, but I have not seen these concepts applied to VR. Specifically, I see a 3-pronged basis for all kinds of automation whic is to involve human input/response, and expecially something like VR, the whole purpose of which is to thoroughly involve the human users: One part is, obviously, the hardware which is to provide the VR information. A second part is the TASKS which are to be accomplished by use of the VR medium. Third is the human, his/her capabilities in perception and cognition. The VR designer MUST (IMHO) attend to ALL THREE components in order to have a chance at creating a successful VR environment. I suggest an analogy to an automobile: What is most important, the engine, the transmission, or the axle/wheels? The car won't go anywhere without all three components, so the issue of which is MOST important is a pseudo issue. Applications of automation/hardware without appreciation of the (human) user's characteristics abound -- read comp.risks!! Enough of my soap box. This is only a VERY terse summary of what I call the exological approach to VR, and to Human-Centered Automation, in general. ============================================================================= MIND. A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to asscertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. -- Ambrose Bierce ============================================================================= Phil Spelt, Cognitive Systems & Human Factors Group sfp@epm.ornl.gov ============================================================================ Any opinions expressed or implied are my own, IF I choose to own up to them. ============================================================================