Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk
From: mukesh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mukesh Patel)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: Sensory Modalities (was Re: Musical Virtual Worlds)
Message-ID: <12072@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 90 15:40:34 GMT
References: <1990Nov13.213038.27046@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> <11370@milton.u.washington
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Sussex
Lines: 48
Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu



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