From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

:Please add new topics at the bottom.

Neuronal processing[edit]

I added a part about the neuronal processing of auditory information! I think it would really benefit from a clarifying picture. I wish I could just insert this wonderful picture:

but Wikipedia doesn't own it. If anyone could reproduce that picture and add it to that section I think that would make it much more easy to comprehend.

We do own this picture:

But I think it's too abstract.

I asked Sinauer Inc for permission to use said picture. Awaiting answer.

Old junk not in any section[edit]

The above article mentions nothing about detecting the DIRECTION or DISTANCE a sound is coming from. I would like more information about that.

For example: Do you HAVE to have two ears in order to tell what direction a sound is coming from? Is directional perception 80% based on stereoscopic audio perception, or is it based on the acoustics of sound as they enter our ears?

Another example: Can you tell how far away an object is just by hearing it? Or is this something we learn through life experience... I.E. hearing a mouse squeek means we are within 2 feet of a mouse because we know we could not hear the squeek from 50 feet away.

These and other should not be discussed and should always be found in the latter. The senses are the non learned insights that humans feel. the ability to smell. Not the ability to know what the smell of something is and then smell it but to know that something is sucreteing smells into your area.

I'd suggest inclusion of some of the 'musical tricks' human hearing does, such as hearing a fundamental note when only harmonics are played, hearing harmonics when only fundamentals are played, and so forth. I also agree with the benefits of including information about locating sounds: how it works, and what limitations it has (how it can be tricked).

Or, is it somewhere else and we could just link to it?

--Kharhaz 05:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ToDo: Audition should not redirect here. Whilst it can formally mean the same thing as hearing, that usage is rare, and most of the inlinks and potential links refer to the usual meaning. Securiger 13:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Should listening really be redirected here? Hearing is a physiological activity while listening is a seperate process that uses what was just heard and to be able to understand it. ImmortalDragon 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to the directional sense, I think I understand sound coming from the left or right, but what about directly in front or behind - or indeed above and below?Hopbine 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Same Article[edit]

This same content is in Auditory system, I suggest a deletion and re-direct. Reid 06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say then deleting this information from Auditory System and Linking to here either in a See Also section or within the text. The Auditory System is what you use to hear, but different then hearing. At the simplest difference; Hearing is an action, The Auditory System is a thing. Aspin Loeborka 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


This article needs to be cleaned up. General copyediting, source citing, grammar, all of it. I don't have time now, but I'll work on it later, but if someone else wants to start. --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyediting and reorganization just now. I mainly moved everything that looked like a reference into the references section, and shifted all the categories up one level. As it was, the entire body of the article was under a single top-level heading. This article still needs a lot more work, and it still needs to be merged with Auditory system. Philbert2.71828 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up and organized a lot. I moved a lot of the more anatomical stuff into the relevant articles to focus the article on the functions and basic mechanism of hearing. Λυδαcιτγ 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition[edit]

Could there be addition about Hyper-Sensitive Hear (i can't spell it scientific name), but that is hearing that is a lot more sensitive than the normal persons, i have hyper-sensitive hearing, and to answer the question about hear a mouse at distance, how loud was the room you heard the mouse in, if it was sliently then i would probably hear the mouse at 50+ feet, and i'm not kidding on the distance part, you make tons of mentions of the deth, but never of the people that hear really well. --Downskated 07:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

single membrane[edit]

ok how human can detect more than one sound wave at the same time....i mean...i think..this is my opinion...somekind of adding up occur...and through the basilr membrane each pulse of each frequency is detected by the hair cells....can anybody help me with that...also..i am wondering is this implies also on mp3 player do the speakers produces successive pulses but the brain perceive it as if they were generated at the same time...or may be the successive sounds heard are considered what we know as voice or any other sound ny the process of learning..what I mean...that when i say"yahoo" the y is it infact composed of successive waves perceived by the brain due to learning as a single entity we call it y...or does the ear can detect by the hair cells many frequences which are gathered together to be perceived as Y!!! thank u and excuse me for my bad english

You need a good book. But then that also means we need to improve the article. Start here. Dicklyon 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

lateralization of function in audition[edit]

I am having a hard time finding out if audition is lateralized in the left or right hemisphere or if both hemispheres play an equal role in the processing of acoustic stimuli. I understand that auditor processing takes place in teh temporal lobe and that there si a temporal lobe located in either hemisphere so am I to deduce from this that both hemispheres play an equal role?

Both sides play a role, but you shouldn't assume equal. For example there is the widely known "right ear advantage for speech" because the signal from the right ear tends to be dominant in the left hemisphere were speech perception is usually localized (if I'm remebering right, but don't trust me, look it up). Dicklyon 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Listening and hearing are two different things[edit]

Listening requires mental and hearing is the physiological part. Again when someone listens they use critical thinking... etc. Hearing doesn't require critical thinking. I say this needs to be decoupled and Communications/Speech discipline be emphasized. Getonyourfeet 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you!. Dicklyon 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What did you say? oh I wasn't listening LAWL!!!

Hearing is the sense that you have that receives the sounds around you. Listening is the ability to focus on and interpret the noises received from the sense of hearing.

Audio frequency checker[edit]

The external link to an audio frequency checking program's homepage was removed with the ambiguous reason, "inappropriate EL". Please show me where the Manual of Style would deem that link "inappropriate". The program does exactly what the existing "appropriate" link does (and more). In fact, it more accurately represents the tones than the Egopont test does. The frequencies on Egopont are labeled much too high. The removal of the link to the more accurate and full-featured program is simply incomprehensible. --Diluvial (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To start with, see WP:EL this section; beyond that it's hard to evaluate, since I don't read Japanese, but from the description "speaker frequency checking software" it didn't sound like it even had to do with hearing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Until an accurate English page is available, the Japanese link remains acceptable under those terms due to 1) the lack of a comparable English source and 2) its provision of more detailed testing features. The description was written as "Speaker volume setup (audio frequency checker)" because that is the title of the software and the heading on its website. Rather than outright deleting the source, its offending description could have been changed (see Help:Reverting#When_to_revert). Anticipating reactions to the language, I had also included a label after the link, indicating that it was Japanese.
Before reverting, did you at least see what the software (zip at bottom) could do? Its interface is fairly self-explanitory, and the numbered screenshots on its page guide users through its operation. The link was passed to me, and I passed it to others, none of whom had extensive knowledge of Japanese or expressed difficulty using it. As long as you have audio output, it ought to be simple. --Diluvial (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this right. You're suggesting that maybe I should download an executable from a page I can't read, and do what with it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the numbered arrows on the screenshots, and listen to the frequencies. It is not that difficult. Even though the language isn't readable, that doesn't make its functions any less useful. Cited reasons have been provided for its inclusion, for the moment, despite its non-English character set. The link was already labeled as non-English. The language seems to be the only valid argument against it, but Wikipedia polices still allow its inclusion when no sufficient alternative is available, and there isn't. There are plenty of free web-based translation services available if anyone deems it absolutely necessary, but when the relevant information consists only of globally-recognized Arabic numerals and SI units, it doesn't really matter in what language the rest of the GUI is written. I don't understand what could possibly be so detestable about it. If it could be that you're worried about viruses, then use a scanner. Simple. (I did.) It provides more accurate samples and results than the Egopont test currently listed. The link deserves to be included until something comparable in English becomes available. Since it was my edit that was undone, I'm trying to discuss the reasons here without provoking an edit war. Does anyone else reading this have an opinion? --Diluvial (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT going to download and run an executable when I can't even read what it's about or why I should trust it, and it is absurd to link it in wikipedia and invite others to do so unless we have a solid reason to trust it. It will have control of your machine whether you have viruses or not, don't you see? Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

distinction threshold[edit]

does anyone know the minimum difference in pitch able to be detected by a human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Toss it up to whomever has the most sensitive biological structures. Boundaries will always be stretched. Even the article's source contains multiple ranges. --Diluvial (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read somewhere, that humans are capable of telling tones apart that are closer than almost any other animal. But anyway, this entire page seems a bit light on information -OOPSIE- (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Intracranial hearing?[edit]

I do not know what the proper term is for this, or if there is a term for it.

When wearing foam earplugs in a loud constantly droning environment (30 computer server fans), I can hear white noise in the center of my head that is precisely controllable by opening my mouth, and moving my lips and tongue and jaw. Varying mouth shape from "ooo" to "eee" vowels leads to a rising pitch of white noise, "shooo" to "sheee". Covering my open mouth with a cupped hand silences the white noise, so it is a physical effect and not tinnitus.

It seems logical for mouth-formed vowel sounds to be reversible if an external sound is projected into the mouth chamber backwards down into the throat cavity.

However the sound reception method is unknown to me. I believe the Eustachian tubes are normally closed so there is no direct sound path from the throat that way. The frequency detection is very high pitch and it doesn't seem like that would be able to pass through soft tissues.

DMahalko (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a stub[edit]

Seriously, nothing on the development and progression of hearing starting in the womb and through childhood into adulthood? That's a pretty important part of hearing. (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

– Clear primary topic. The disamb page has 5509 views in the past 90 days [1] while the sense has 52302; the meaning of a non-deaf person has 1107. Hearing (law) is the only one that comes close, at 17967, but I think that the ratio is big enough (and the logic is simple enough)... I mean, what is our reader expecting when they type in hearing? What's an editor expecting when they link to hearing? Red Slash 23:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Mild support. I immediately thought of the legal proceeding, but I think you're right that most people would expect the sense at the base name. Powers T 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. More basic and more important than the legal concept, and far more basic and far more important than the other concepts on the disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild support. The view counts suggest someone is 3 times more likely to view the sense than the legal proceeding. MarshallKe (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems intuitive to me. Serotonick (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; appears to be the primarytopic. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and above. Level-four vital article, makes sense to have it as primary topic. IgnorantArmies 03:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.