Shared mental representations underlie metaphorical sound concepts.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 03 2023
30 03 2023
Historique:
received:
28
10
2022
accepted:
24
03
2023
medline:
3
4
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Communication between sound and music experts is based on the shared understanding of a metaphorical vocabulary derived from other sensory modalities. Yet, the impact of sound expertise on the mental representation of these sound concepts remains blurry. To address this issue, we investigated the acoustic portraits of four metaphorical sound concepts (brightness, warmth, roundness, and roughness) in three groups of participants (sound engineers, conductors, and non-experts). Participants (N = 24) rated a corpus of orchestral instrument sounds (N = 520) using Best-Worst Scaling. With this data-driven method, we sorted the sound corpus for each concept and population. We compared the population ratings and ran machine learning algorithms to unveil the acoustic portraits of each concept. Overall, the results revealed that sound engineers were the most consistent. We found that roughness is widely shared while brightness is expertise dependent. The frequent use of brightness by expert populations suggests that its meaning got specified through sound expertise. As for roundness and warmth, it seems that the importance of pitch and noise in their acoustic definition is the key to distinguishing them. These results provide crucial information on the mental representations of a metaphorical vocabulary of sound and whether it is shared or refined by sound expertise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36997613
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-32214-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-32214-2
pmc: PMC10063581
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5180Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 Apr;141(4):2746
pubmed: 28464656
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Aug;74(6):1154-67
pubmed: 22648604
Sci Robot. 2019 Dec 18;4(37):
pubmed: 33137719
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 8;109(19):7241-4
pubmed: 22509011
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Nov;130(5):2902-16
pubmed: 22087919
Percept Psychophys. 2000 Oct;62(7):1426-39
pubmed: 11143454
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Oct;20(5):878-96
pubmed: 23463615
J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Mar;135(3):1371-9
pubmed: 24606275
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):643-64
pubmed: 23413012
Iperception. 2012;3(5):316-8
pubmed: 23145286
Chem Senses. 2002 Oct;27(8):747-55
pubmed: 12379599
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):115-133
pubmed: 29322399
J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 Oct;148(4):2256
pubmed: 33138535
Curr Biol. 2015 Aug 3;25(15):2051-6
pubmed: 26190070
JASA Express Lett. 2022 Jun;2(6):064404
pubmed: 36154161
Psychol Res. 1995;58(3):177-92
pubmed: 8570786
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Apr;50(2):711-729
pubmed: 28550657
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2010 Mar;16(1):16-32
pubmed: 20350041
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Jan;23(1):21-33
pubmed: 30466793
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):369-377
pubmed: 33257878