Re: LOGO-L> Auditory vs Visual

[Tom Woods <woods@moose.ncia.net>]

James E. Hoburg wrote:
>Still, cognitively we may guess at and zero-in on the
>transmitted meaning as we receive the message--processing on-the-fly.  For
>example, we hear the 1st phoneme, and can't be sure what's next, but when we
>get the 2nd we can limit meaningful possibilities which could reasonably
>follow the 1st and 2nd, and begin assuming endings before we receive the 3rd,
>etc.  Utter conjecture, of course, but might not binary encodings be devised
>which would support the same?


If I tapped out in morse, "THE COW JUMPED OVER THE M"

you could make a reasonable assumption that the next three letters I tap out
will be "OON." You will do that reading text too. But with morse, doing so
does not speed up the reading process because you still have to wait for the
next letters to follow. Reading text, your eyes have probably scanned beyond
the "OON." Could we generalize and say that with visual representations,
reading rate is constrained by processing time. With auditory
representations, it is constrained by transmission time? 
>
>> Now, what advantages are there for auditory reading?
>
>  Perhaps none for the sighted.  

If that were true, we probably wouldn't have evolved speech or music.
For visual representations, you have to be looking at it in order to attend
to it. Auditory representations have the power to interrupt other processes.
That's a BIG plus. There must be others.

Tom 


---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.