Yanny or Laurel?

[Saracen]

&

And I can see all the magic eye pictures, if I know what I'm looking for.
But without being told what you should be able to hear, how many people can hear each/both, at varying times under the exact same conditions?


AIUI, it has multiple frequencies, so any number of slight variance in all the variables could alter perception.

Still don't get what's supposedly being proven/demonstrated, beyond yet another meme-fodder trick...

Given that both names are flashed up, it wouldn't be the same trick, demonstration, experiment, whatever, without visual clues because the input would be monomodel, not multimodal.

Also, it's not "proving" anything. It's demonstrating an analog of the McGurk effect, that is, multimodsl stimuli, and results suggest different people react differently, no doubt due to differences in stimuli 3 to X. To prove anything, this would have to be done under controlled conditions, with participants selected according to wgat you were attrmpting to assert, such as a gtoup of similar age but differing hearing, as verified by kab heating tests, or comparisons between age groups. All samples, of course, need to be of sufficient size to be statistically significant, and selected to eliminate other factors (like educational level, native language, etc). The latter because some nationalities, like those raised on tonal languages, or with very different common pronunciation of certain letters (like the W or V sounds) will affect perception (and expectation) of what results tupically come from certain base sounds.

But what's being demonstrated, ultimately, is that hearing, or more specifically, speech recognition, are affected by more that just pure sound, and that we "hear" speech and many other sounds) in our brains, not our ears.

[Ttaskmaster]

&
Given that both names are flashed up, it wouldn't be the same trick, demonstration, experiment, whatever, without visual clues because the input would be monomodel, not multimodal.

It's only recently I've seen videos that flash the word up. Until now, it's been audio only or just the soundwave vectors displayed, especially when they do it over the radio... because it's mostly about what your ears hear, not what your eyes tell your ears to see...
However, I assume that it's supposed to have video, hence the McGurk bit? I'll have to find one, though I doubt it'll affect me much - Decades of watching mismatched dubbing in films has trained me to hear the audio and ignore whatever the actors are doing (which would be a good ability if I worked in Hollywood).

[QUOTE=Saracen;3964100]It's demonstrating an analog of the McGurk effect[/quotye]
And it's been around since 1976, but we're only now going gaga over it??!!

But what's being demonstrated, ultimately, is that hearing, or more specifically, speech recognition, are affected by more that just pure sound, and that we "hear" speech and many other sounds) in our brains, not our ears.

Well that part is obvious - For decades, we've filmed animals from really far away using telephoto lenses, but because it's so far the sounds have to be added in post-production by Foley artists. If you watch them do it or just heard the noise, the sounds are blindingly obvious and so distinct you'd swear they're unique... but with the visual cue of a fox running, the prodding of beanbags suddenly becomes paws in snow.

Still disappointed in this whole craze, though....

[AGTDenton]

Oddly I heard both... first Yanny then Laurel. I restarted the vid then only heard Laurel... how weird

[davebodger]

Through headphones on my PC I can only hear Laurel.
I know someone called Laurel and have never heard of Yanny, so I think my filters are already set. :-)