People

*** PLEASE READ ************************************** THIS PAGE HAS BEEN IMPORTED FROM THE OLD SITE. FORMATTING IS MAINTAINED BY AN EXTERNAL STYLESHEET. WHEN YOU EDIT THIS PAGE, YOU MAY WANT TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO THIS STYLESHEET AND UPDATE THE FORMATTING. ******************************************************

Reibadailty


New Scientist vol 162 issue 2188 - 29 May 1999, page 55

You report that reversing 50-millisecond segments of recorded sound does not greatly affect listeners' ability to understand speech (New Scientist, In Brief, 1 May, p 27).

This reminds me of my PhD at Nottingham University (1976), which showed that randomising letters in the middle of words had little or no effect on the ability of skilled readers to understand the text. Indeed one rapid reader noticed only four or five errors in an A4 page of muddled text.

This is easy to denmtrasote. In a puiltacibon of New Scnieitst you could ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same, and reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. My ansaylis did not come to much beucase the thoery at the time was for shape and senqeuce retigcionon. Saberi's work sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael prsooscers at work.

The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing coentnt by paarllel prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang.

This was not easy to type!


Graham Rawlinson
Aldershot, Hampshire

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.