fafalone Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Just something someone pointed out to me online... never really thought about it... but did anyone have a difficult time reading that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 No. It took a little longer (but not much). The surprising thing is the 'According to research at Cambridge' bit, which suggests it's quite recent. The principle that people read by scanning word 'shapes' and using semantic probabilities rather than reading every individual letter has been known for some time (it appears in 1st year Cog. Psych. books). Do you have a link to that research? I would be interested in seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 That is interesting I didn't know that. I did read your text without a single hesitation. But I quess I do have an advantage I have dyslexia so I'm more 'trained' to read it that way. The other way to look at it is if they are in the right order then it's an advantage for most people but not if you have dyslexia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Castor Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Not for the English beginer~~ hehe ~~~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Fafalone, not only did I find that easy to understand at about 99.9% of the rate at which I'd read 'normal' text, but it is easier to read than a lot of the genuine posts we sometimes see A very interesting phenomenon. Any linkage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I've been looking for an original paper on the subject but so far no luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Did some searching myself for the origin. That funny piece of text is present in more than a few forums now. (all without reference) http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/000224.html there is also a version with 'Elingsh uinervtisy' and one with just 'uinervtisy' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I located the article in Nature that your link refers to; however that only concerns reversed speech. Article - reprinted here for use by educational institutes with site licenses and their students and faculty only: We subdivided a digitized sentence into segments of fixed duration (say, 50 ms). Every segment was then time-reversed without smoothing the transition borders between the segments. The entire spoken sentence was therefore globally contiguous, but locally time-reversed, at every point (A+B in Fig. 1). Listeners report perfect intelligibility of the sentence for segment durations up to 50 ms, and partial intelligibility for segment durations exceeding 100 ms (Fig. 1, bottom), with 50% intelligibility occurring at about 130 ms; by psychoacoustic standards, such segment distortions are very long. Many defining features of speech sounds are rapid temporal transitions with durations well within the reversal window. Figure 1 Segments of speech showing the effects of time reversal. Full legend High resolution image and legend (47k) Perception of speech against local time reversal is robust even if alternating segments are shifted in time (A+delayed B). Speech also remains intelligible if odd-numbered segments are displaced forwards in time by two or three times the duration of the window. For example, for segments of 100 ms, shifting the odd-numbered segment forward in time by 200 ms reduces the intelligibility rating by only 15%. For segments of 50 ms, intelligibility is not significantly affected by a displacement of 100 or 200 ms, but the speech does sound more echoic. Furthermore, the results are not changed if half the segments (A in Fig. 1) are presented to one ear and the other half (B in Fig. 1) to the other ear. When subjects listen repeatedly to locally time-reversed sentences with moderately long windows (100 ms), they report that previously unintelligible words become clear. This type of 'learning' is not simply due to an improvement in identification, as subjects say they can now hear actual words, indicating some form of cognitive recalibration. The experience is similar to familiarization with a newly heard accent. These findings lend support to recent theories7,8 of speech encoding that state, contrary to conventional thinking, that a detailed auditory analysis of the short-term acoustic spectrum is not essential to the speech code. Rather, the ultralow-frequency modulation envelopes in the order of 3 to 8 Hz are critical cues to intelligibility. Although the amplitude spectrum of a waveform is unaffected by time reversal, the temporal envelopes, as well as the fine structure of the running spectrum, are highly distorted for such sounds. The advantage of a robust speech-encoding system that uses higher-order corrective measures and ultralow-frequency cues is obvious in noisy environments where the listener needs to extract perceptually and identify a stream of speech cues that compete with extraneous noise, as in the 'cocktail party effect'9. References 1. Moore, B. C. J. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing 4th edn (Academic, New York, 1997). 2. Lassen, N. A., Ingvar, D. H. & Skinhoj, E. Sci. Am. 239, 50-59 (1978). 3. Nishizawa, Y., Olsen, T. S., Larsen, B. & Lassen, N. J. Neurophysiol. 48, 458-466 (1982). | ChemPort | 4. Cherry, E. C. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 975-979 (1953). 5. Warren, R. M., Bashford, J. A., Healy, E. W. & Brubaker, B. S. Percept. Psychophys. 55, 313-322 (1994). | ChemPort | 6. Licklider, J. C. R. & Miller, G. A. The Perception of Speech. Handbook of Experimental Psychology (ed. Stevens, S. S.) 1040-1074 (Wiley, New York, 1960). 7. Greenberg, S. & Arai, T. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 3057 (1998). 8. Greenberg, S. I. Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 267 (1998). 9. Yost, W. A. Percept. Psychophys. 58, 1026-1036 (1996). | ChemPort | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 pdf of previous post for convenience/images remember, only people are have access to nature should dl this 398760a0_r.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Taht was way to esay for me to raed tahn I wulod lkie to hvae me tihnk it wulod......Its so sad................................................................I use to many three letter words......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 For alot of people the scrambled text is alot easier to read than the research article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Wow, that was radical. I did have a seconds delay a few times, but only because i'm somewhat stupid. Duuuddeee. I think english teachers should officially stop caring about spelling. The purpose of language is to communicate right? So as long as thats achieved who in hades cares how the communication comes about, especially if its been established that spelling can be EXTREMELY off and still be understood. Do got a link to more stuff on the subject (just cuz its fun), maybes some stuff directly from cambrige? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 Appearance of a paper matters. Spelling errors are easily noticed, and people care more than you think in the work world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Should it matter? What is the purpose of it mattering? If the task of communication is filled, what defines 'bad' spelling as an error? There is no impediment to the reason language exists, so i see no need to attach morality to it.--- thats what it is, right spelling VS wrong spelling, except that these values have only fictional relation to anything important. Down with ignorance! Down with spelling! (BTW i'm not actually that passionate about it, just joking around) Anyway its more of a bother to take the time to scramble it, so its really a pointless argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 If you're looking at 2 resumes, one says higher me cuz i wrko god Hire me because I work well. Who gets the job 100% of the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 That is because correct writing is directly linked with intelligence by most people. If you write an error somewhere people think immediately that you are stupid. Although in practice it are two separate things. But I guess the probability is higher for getting an intelligent person if you take the second one. on the other hand who doesn't want 'god' at his side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 I accidentally read the reprinted article. Is blike in trouble now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 My point is we should be concened about things more important than spelling, spelling doesn't have much purpose anyway. I also understand its a waste of my time to whine when i do not have systems to replace the ones i question----- just saying . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 No, but I am if they actuaaly care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 There's a fabulous phrase: "If you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Crap for brains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #20 :There's a fabulous phrase: "If you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say". Lewis Carroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 It would make more sense if "never" is removed from the sentence. I mean: can never --> can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 MrL_JaKiri said in post #23 : Lewis Carroll. That's the chap, cheers MrL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now