5 ms·

>Through predictive processing, the brain uses its prior knowledge of the world to make inferences or generate hypotheses about the causes of incoming sensory i

>Through predictive processing, the brain uses its prior knowledge of the world to make inferences or generate hypotheses about the causes of incoming sensory information. I wonder if this mechanism is responsible for many shared false memories (or Mandela Effect). As an example, the spelling of the Berenstain Bears is misremembered by many, perhaps because we're so accustomed to seeing the suffix -stein in last names.

mcny 5y ago
I still refuse to believe ET by Katy Perry always said "different DNA". I distinctly remember it used to say perfect DNA, not different DNA. Or I've lost my mind.
rectang 5y ago
For a couple of years I made my living as an audio mastering engineer, which involves making tiny changes at or below the threshold of perception. One of the main ways I set myself up for success was to accept the human perceptual mechanism's propensity for illusion, and then to build systems which helped me avoid being deceived by it. • An instant level-matched AB switching mechanism for auditioning changes • Preferring tools which could be checked under optimal perceptual conditions, and choosing to avoid gear which did not lend itself easily to such conditions. This generally meant preferring software plugins and avoiding outboard gear unless the budget was very high (which it rarely was for my clients). • Isolating changes and amplifying the effect to well above perceptual threshold in order to get an impression of the change before dialing it back down. (This is a standard practice, especially for mix engineers.) Many audio engineers don't hold the same priorities, especially "audiophile" types those who advertise their "golden ears"[1]. And many customers don't want someone who acknowledges the fallibility of their perceptions. But I was confident that I was absolutely doing my best work and offering the best possible value to my clients. [1] It's basically impossible to talk intelligently about audio in an open internet forum (including HN) because there will always be a swarm of participants who don't accept the limits of perception and their own propensity for illusion.
- skulk 5y ago
  > gear which did not lend itself easily to such conditions could you expand on this a bit? I don't see how software vs hardware could impact this, doesn't it all just go through an amplifier to your headphones at the end?
  - ubercore 5y ago
    Only think I can think of is taking the effect of cables and preamps out of the loops when running through outboard gear?
  - rectang 5y ago
    I built my AB system in software, which allowed me to make a tiny crossfade on switching and avoid a big click. It's well understood that such clicks wreak havoc on your ability to perceive small changes. I didn't have access to an analog version of that at the time. It was also more difficult to set up and compare multiple "wet" settings for hardware devices, and it was less convenient to "save" settings, take a break and come back with fresh ears (because the studio might be used for something else in the interim.) It's possible to give yourself optimal conditions with hardware tools, it's just less convenient (and thus more expensive). I believed that giving myself optimal perceptual conditions and an ideal workflow was far more important than gear choice — especially in terms of value, but in my view even in terms of doing my best work in an absolute sense.
    - wholinator2 5y ago
      One thing ive done with my tiny amateur setup is close my eyes and click the switch a bunch of times, such that I can attempt to discern between two settings but no longer know which is which, and then attempt to discern a difference. The crossfade sounds like a very interesting method although it would prevent the destruction of knowledge for me as (at least I don't know how) you can't randomize it. But maybe my approach is terrible, it's just something I cooked up because I noticed I couldn't tell what anything was doing anymore, it helped make difficult decisions slightly easier. I would also be interested in hearing about the studio! Was it just a big place that you were renting occasionally, is it possible to rent a real room with a mastering desk? Im still renting so I can't do all those fancy room modifications yet.
EMM_386 5y ago
> Berenstain Bears Now that's a weird one, never saw that example before. I'm familiar with the subject ... yet, if you asked me to spell it, it would have been -stein. Very interesting.
- Talanes 5y ago
  That was probably the example that propelled the phenomenon to mass-consciousness. That and Shazaam were the two people talked about all the time around when the subreddit formed, and Berenstein definitely had a much larger group of people sure they remembered the wrong way being true.
breck 5y ago
Just this week, I was reading Berenstain Bears books to my daughter, and shocked that it was not Berenstein. I still hear Berenstein in my head. Then I see your comment, which I shall interpret as that I am not misremembering, instead I am in the Truman Show—and some prop guy spelled the title of the new book wrong, and your comment is all part of a rushed coverup. ;) (Of course, I recognize this as another instance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion)

mcny 5y ago

I still refuse to believe ET by Katy Perry always said "different DNA". I distinctly remember it used to say perfect DNA, not different DNA. Or I've lost my mind.

rectang 5y ago

For a couple of years I made my living as an audio mastering engineer, which involves making tiny changes at or below the threshold of perception. One of the main ways I set myself up for success was to accept the human perceptual mechanism's propensity for illusion, and then to build systems which helped me avoid being deceived by it. • An instant level-matched AB switching mechanism for auditioning changes • Preferring tools which could be checked under optimal perceptual conditions, and choosing to avoid gear which did not lend itself easily to such conditions. This generally meant preferring software plugins and avoiding outboard gear unless the budget was very high (which it rarely was for my clients). • Isolating changes and amplifying the effect to well above perceptual threshold in order to get an impression of the change before dialing it back down. (This is a standard practice, especially for mix engineers.) Many audio engineers don't hold the same priorities, especially "audiophile" types those who advertise their "golden ears"[1]. And many customers don't want someone who acknowledges the fallibility of their perceptions. But I was confident that I was absolutely doing my best work and offering the best possible value to my clients. [1] It's basically impossible to talk intelligently about audio in an open internet forum (including HN) because there will always be a swarm of participants who don't accept the limits of perception and their own propensity for illusion.

skulk 5y ago
> gear which did not lend itself easily to such conditions could you expand on this a bit? I don't see how software vs hardware could impact this, doesn't it all just go through an amplifier to your headphones at the end?
- ubercore 5y ago
  Only think I can think of is taking the effect of cables and preamps out of the loops when running through outboard gear?
- rectang 5y ago
  I built my AB system in software, which allowed me to make a tiny crossfade on switching and avoid a big click. It's well understood that such clicks wreak havoc on your ability to perceive small changes. I didn't have access to an analog version of that at the time. It was also more difficult to set up and compare multiple "wet" settings for hardware devices, and it was less convenient to "save" settings, take a break and come back with fresh ears (because the studio might be used for something else in the interim.) It's possible to give yourself optimal conditions with hardware tools, it's just less convenient (and thus more expensive). I believed that giving myself optimal perceptual conditions and an ideal workflow was far more important than gear choice — especially in terms of value, but in my view even in terms of doing my best work in an absolute sense.
  - wholinator2 5y ago
    One thing ive done with my tiny amateur setup is close my eyes and click the switch a bunch of times, such that I can attempt to discern between two settings but no longer know which is which, and then attempt to discern a difference. The crossfade sounds like a very interesting method although it would prevent the destruction of knowledge for me as (at least I don't know how) you can't randomize it. But maybe my approach is terrible, it's just something I cooked up because I noticed I couldn't tell what anything was doing anymore, it helped make difficult decisions slightly easier. I would also be interested in hearing about the studio! Was it just a big place that you were renting occasionally, is it possible to rent a real room with a mastering desk? Im still renting so I can't do all those fancy room modifications yet.

EMM_386 5y ago

> Berenstain Bears Now that's a weird one, never saw that example before. I'm familiar with the subject ... yet, if you asked me to spell it, it would have been -stein. Very interesting.

Talanes 5y ago
That was probably the example that propelled the phenomenon to mass-consciousness. That and Shazaam were the two people talked about all the time around when the subreddit formed, and Berenstein definitely had a much larger group of people sure they remembered the wrong way being true.

breck 5y ago

Just this week, I was reading Berenstain Bears books to my daughter, and shocked that it was not Berenstein. I still hear Berenstein in my head. Then I see your comment, which I shall interpret as that I am not misremembering, instead I am in the Truman Show—and some prop guy spelled the title of the new book wrong, and your comment is all part of a rushed coverup. ;) (Of course, I recognize this as another instance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion)