NickJS Senior Member United Kingdom flickr.com/photos/sg Joined 4781 days ago 264 posts - 334 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Russian, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese
| Message 9 of 15 13 November 2011 at 11:30pm | IP Logged |
I defiantly think frequency can have an effect on learning - especially when younger. But
still even as you get older I think the frequency someone speaks at can have an effect.
For example if someone is talking outside where I live I always pick up on it and hear it
(which is very annoying for me sometimes), however if it was just a television playing or
something I probably wouldn't hear it, or at least not unless it was playing a lot louder
than someone actually talking.
I guess its similar to dogs and dolphins etc in a way.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
FuroraCeltica Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6687 days ago 1187 posts - 1427 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, French
| Message 10 of 15 13 November 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged |
Ari wrote:
So I came across this article about high-frequency sound playing a role in carrying information in speech. And towards the end I catch this little quote:
Quote:
studies in kids have shown that they learn new words three times more quickly if they hear recordings that range up to 9,000 Hz instead of 4,000 Hz. |
|
|
300% is a pretty significant result. Does this affect us? How far into the high frequencies does the audio on common language learning material go? |
|
|
I came across a language programme the other day that claimed it pitched words at frequencies especially designed to increase chances of it being learned, I wish I could remember it.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
yong321 Groupie United States yong321.freeshe Joined 5364 days ago 80 posts - 104 votes Studies: Spanish
| Message 11 of 15 15 November 2011 at 11:18pm | IP Logged |
Guys, this is about sound frequency, not sampling frequency. (Human ears would have a hard time to hear anything close to 20k.)
The original research article (thanks to Dr. Monson for the reference) is
http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/785
The relevant paragraph is "Number of Exposures Required for Learning". The abbreviations used in there: NH for normal hearing, HL for hearing loss. Cutting off the high frequency part of a speech makes fricative phonemes hard to recognize. Adults have less problems because of better use of context, but probably not in learning a foreign language.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
fiziwig Senior Member United States Joined 4687 days ago 297 posts - 618 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish
| Message 12 of 15 15 November 2011 at 11:33pm | IP Logged |
yong321 wrote:
Guys, this is about sound frequency, not sampling frequency. (Human ears would have a hard time to hear anything close to 20k.)
...
|
|
|
Sampling frequency limits the top sound frequency that is captured and reproduced, so sampling frequency of digital recording IS relevant.
Frequencies above 20K still affect the shape of the wave. It's not which high frequency in isolation that matters, but the harmonic contribution it makes to the wave shape.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
yong321 Groupie United States yong321.freeshe Joined 5364 days ago 80 posts - 104 votes Studies: Spanish
| Message 13 of 15 15 November 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged |
Fiziwig,
I agree sampling frequency is relevant to learning a foreign language. But my point is, that's not what the research article is about. Ari (the OP) is asking about "high-frequency sound". But later messages seem to be talking about sampling frequency, which the quoted article has not done any research on.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
schoenewaelder Diglot Senior Member Germany Joined 5382 days ago 759 posts - 1197 votes Speaks: English*, French Studies: German, Spanish, Dutch
| Message 14 of 15 17 November 2011 at 2:44am | IP Logged |
The paper linked by yong321 wrote:
The "nonsense" words used in the experiment were
Sothnud sa{theta}n{schwa}d
Doztul dazt{schwa}l
Fosnush fasn{schwa}esh
Stomun stam{schwa}n
Homtul hamt{schwa}l
|
|
|
So they have been deliberately created with frictive consonants and similar syllable structure to be easily confused.
So for language learners the figure of 300% would not apply generally, and probably only apply to a handful of words.
It's only about confusion between those consonants, not about there being subconscious information in the high frequencies that make words generally easier to learn.
(Personally, I do find poor quality audio very frustrating, but I don't think it particularly relates to the high frequencies being missing.)
Edited by schoenewaelder on 17 November 2011 at 2:46am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
mrwarper Diglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member Spain forum_posts.asp?TID=Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5048 days ago 1493 posts - 2500 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2 Studies: German, Russian, Japanese
| Message 15 of 15 17 November 2011 at 7:16am | IP Logged |
schoenewaelder wrote:
... I do find poor quality audio very frustrating, but I don't think it particularly relates to the high frequencies being missing. |
|
|
Well, using hf-dropping equipment is just one way -an extremely widespread one BTW- to achieve poor quality audio.
1 person has voted this message useful
|