

Segregation (was: an auditory illusion)

>I proposed at the 1995 Mohonk meeting,
>and have continued to do ever since, that it is essential to associate
>a particular **value** (e.g., blue, red) with a particular attribute
>(=type, e.g., ball, table) for a scene to be correctly analyzed.
>In other words, correctly recognizing the mere PRESENCE of
>types and values does not lead to segregation of streams/events UNLESS
>the type-value association is correct.

That position has the advantage of being radical and clear.  However it
leads to a definition of segregation that is perhaps too restrictive.

I'd distinguish the following levels of "segregation":
        (0) unaware of multiple sources
        (1) aware of more than one source (say, two)
        (2) able to recognize both sources
        (3) able to associate each source with other attributes (in Pierre's
example, correctly attribute "come here, love" to wife rather than rival).

Each level adds some information relative to the previous one.
Perhaps one bit between (0) and (1), a difficult-to-estimate-but-large
number between (1) and (2), one bit between (2) and  (3).  This last bit
is likely to be available from other sources (context,  experience, etc.)
unless one was really drunk.

If "segregation" only occurs at level (3), we need a word to describe
what happens at lower levels.  I'd use the same word, but allowing that
it may occur in degrees.

Alain de Cheveigne', alain@linguist.jussieu.fr