Information

Why are sight and sound prerequisites for intelligence?

Why are sight and sound prerequisites for intelligence?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Edward O. Wilson, in The Diversity of Life wrote (emphasis mine):

Ninety-nine percent of the animals find their way by chemical trails. [… ]

Animals are masters of this chemical channel, where we are idiots. But we are geniuses of the audiovisual channel, equaled in this modality only by a few odd groups (whales, monkeys, birds). So we wait for dawn, while they wait for the fall of darkness; and because sight and sound are the evolutionary prerequisites of intelligence, we alone have come to reflect on such matters [… ]

I'm getting this from an anthology (Dawkins' "Modern Science Writing") so I don't see how Wilson supports this statement, and my google-fu is bringin up nothing relevant-seeming.

My question is: why are sight and sound prerequisites for a species to evolve intelligence?


To answer your question, we must first ask the question What is defined as intelligence?

A googling will tell you that most people believe intelligence to be something related to apes or even more conservatively to humans. But, I find this to be a bit unpragmatic. The closest level of abstraction I find towards defining intelligence is this wiki on Animal Cognition. Having said so, I personally would define intelligence on a much more abstract level.

Intelligence can be broadly defined as a learned response towards an external stimulus, providing the organism with an increased fitness/survival within it's ecosystem.

So Intelligence can be broken down into two parts

  1. Memory of a stimulus
  2. A programmed response towards that stimulus

This is a very famous video showcasing intelligence in the animal world; Crow Intelligence test

But My objective is to state that sight and sound are are not at all prerequisites of intelligence.

This paper from way back in 2014 is I think the best that I can state

Memory and Fitness Optimization of Bacteria under Fluctuating Environments

In this particular paper the authors test the capacity of E coli to produce a response within fluctuating environments, and they find that as the generations progress the later generations take lesser time to produce a response towards the stimulus. They also note that what happens if the prior external environmental state is restored. In such a case later generations become optimised for that particular state.

This is a very good example of memory which is stored at the level of DNA, and a level of intelligence is manifested in a microbial system. So therefore, can you really state that "sight- and sound" are pre-requisites of intelligence. I would say No They are not, that would be an over-simplistic way of what intelligence really is.


He may be referring to the fact that many nocturnal animals wait for the cover of darkness to be able to get their food safely or in order to cloak themselves to approach their prey better. However, this seems to be a matter of personal opinion. He wants you to think that we are smarter because we have to hide and hunt in broad daylight. I haven't been able to support his theory as bats can be considered very intelligent - and they primarily hunt at night.

In fact, we also consider dogs - and their wolf counterparts - to be intelligent as well, and you typically only see wolves at night.

Also, studies are showing that humans who are "Night Owls" are smarter than people who are "Morning Larks" according to a study in Psychology.

If you're interested in different kinds of behaviours and how intelligent they are you can look at BBC Animal Adaptations, which has a really cool list of what abilities each animal has split into categories. Particularly, they have an "Animal Intelligence" section which goes into detail about particular behaviours humans consider to be signs of intelligence. Personally, I think their list is a little out of date - where it is missing a few animals - but by their standards, many of the nocturnal animals have not made it onto the list.

A reason that hearing could be a prerequisite for intelligence is that communication is considered to be a HUGE part of intelligent behaviour. Tool use could be a reason that sight is considered a prerequisite for being intelligent. Really, the five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell) allow us to really take in the world and adapt to it properly. Sight, hearing and smell typically allow us to be warned of dangers but the fact is that we have to be intelligent enough to know what to do with the information.


Summary: Intelligence can be measured in many different ways. Edward O. Wilson could have been looking at a number of different things when he came to his conclusion (where sight and sound were required for intelligent beings). The truth is that it is all speculative.

If you judge a fish's intelligence by its ability to climb a tree, it will grow up thinking that it's stupid.

Subsequently if you judge my intelligence by my ability to spell, I will also go on thinking I'm stupid ;)


With all due respect to Dr. Wilson, this is just an anthropocentric, post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Dr. Wilson looked around the world we live in, saw that most intelligent creatures navigate by sight and/or sound and concluded that those sense are a prerequisite for intelligence. I see absolutely no evidence to support this theory.

First of all, that is a classic fallacy. It is the equivalent of a 17th century European going to Africa and concluding that having pinkish skin is a prerequisite for the development of technology. Or if I were to go to Japan and conclude that having an epicanthic fold is a prerequisite for making good sushi.

The fact that the paths chosen by the evolutionary process on this planet are skewed towards sight and sound for more intelligent species does not in any way imply that those senses are needed for intelligence. What is needed are ways of detecting and reacting to the environment as quickly as possible. Light and sound are indeed particularly well suited for this since they travel several orders of magnitude faster than chemical diffusion. That's a good reason to conclude they might have given a selective advantage to the species relying on those two waves to detect their predators or prey.

There are, however, other options. Radar (bats) and sonar (dolphins) can be thought of as sight (or hearing) but are quite different. They both involve the emission of a wave and analysis of what is reflected back. Sight involves the analysis of light emitted by the sun and reflected by the environment. Being able to use your own body to emit the energy needed for your perception would seem to be a huge advantage. Our wonderful sight only works half of the time.

You could also, conceivably, have very fast perception based on things like:

  • Quantum entanglement; actually faster than light.
  • Magnetoception;
  • Electrolocation;
  • Gravity;

Some of the above already exist in species on this planet, others do not. Admittedly, using quantum entanglement would be kind of tricky. On the other hand, I see no reason why tiny disturbances in the gravitic field could not be detected just as tiny disturbances in the electromagnetic fields are by animals like sharks and cockroaches.

The main point of all this is that the fact that intelligent animals on this planet tend to do X does not in any way imply that X is a prerequisite for intelligence. Quite frankly, I expected better of someone like Dr. Wilson than such baseless speculation presented as fact.


Is there a universal hierarchy of human senses?

Research at the University of York has shown that the accepted hierarchy of human senses -- sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell -- is not universally true across all cultures.

Researchers found that rather than being able to predict the importance of the senses from biology, cultural factors were most important.

Study revealed that cultures which placed particular value on their specialist musical heritage were able to communicate more efficiently on describing sounds, even when non-musicians were tested. Similarly, living in a culture that produces patterned pottery made people better able to talk about shapes.

The findings could prove significant for a range of practices in education and other professions to help further enhance how people understand and utilise their sensory perceptions of the world.

Professor of Language, Communication, and Cultural Cognition at the University of York's Department of Psychology, Asifa Majid, said: "Scientists have spent hundreds of years trying to understand how human sensory organs work, concluding that sight is the most important sense, followed hearing, touch, taste and smell.

"Previous research has shown that English speakers find it easy to talk about the things that they can see, such as colours and shapes, but struggle to name the things that they smell. It was not known, however, if this was universally true across other languages and cultures."

To answer this question, an international team led by Professor Majid, conducted a large-scale experiment to investigate the ease with which people could communicate about colors, shapes, sounds, textures, tastes and smells.

Speakers of 20 diverse languages, including three different sign languages, from across the globe were tested, ranging from hunter-gatherers to post-industrial societies.

If the commonly accepted hierarchy of the senses were true, participants in the study should have been able to communicate about vision most easily, followed by sounds, such as loud and quiet textures, such as smooth and rough taste, such as sweet and sour and smell, such as chocolate and coffee.

Professor Majid, said: "While English speakers behaved as predicted, describing sight and sound with ease, this was not the case across all cultures.

"Across all cultures, people found smell the most difficult to talk about, reflecting the widely-held view that smell is the 'mute sense.' A traditional hunter-gatherer group from Australia, however, who speak the language Umpila, showed the best performance in talking about smell, outranking all other 19 cultures."

English speakers struggled to talk about basic tastes, but speakers of Farsi and Lao, however, showed almost perfect scores in being able to identify taste, perhaps reflecting the differences in how people engage with cultural cuisines.

Professor Majid said: "What this study shows us is that we can't always assume that understanding certain human functions within the context of the English language provides us with a universally relevant perspective or solution.

"In a modern digital-led world, which typically engages sight and hearing, it could be worthwhile learning from other cultures in the way that taste and smell can be communicated, for example.

"This could be particularly important for the future of some professions, such as the food industry, for example, where being able to communicate about taste and smell is essential."

The research, supported by the Max Planck Institute, is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).


Study Provides New Insights About Brain Organization

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. &ndash New evidence in animals suggests that theories about how the brain processes sight, sound and touch may need updating. Researchers from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center and colleagues report their findings in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using electrodes smaller than a human hair, researchers from Wake Forest Baptist and the University of California at San Francisco recorded individual cell activity in the brains of 31 adult rats. Their goal was to test two conflicting ideas about brain organization.

"One theory is that individual senses have separate areas of the brain dedicated to them," said Mark Wallace, Ph.D., the study's lead investigator. "In this view, information is processed initially on a sense-by-sense basis and doesn't come together until much later. However, this view has recently been challenged by studies showing that processing in the visual area of the brain, for example, can be influenced by hearing and touch."

Wallace and colleagues created a map of the rat cerebral cortex, the part of the brain believed responsible for perception. The map was created to show how different areas respond to sight, sound and touch. They found that while large regions are overwhelming devoted to processing information from a single sense, in the borders between them, cells can share information from both senses.

"This represents a new view of how the brain is organized," said Wallace, an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at Wake Forest Baptist.

He said these multisensory cells might also help explain how individuals who suffer a loss of one sense early in their life often develop greater acuity in their remaining senses.

"Imaging studies in humans show that when sight is lost at a young age, a portion of the brain that had been dedicated to sight begins to process sound and touch. It is possible that this change begins in these multisensory border regions, where cells that are normally responsive to these different senses are already found."

Wallace said the finding is also important because it suggests that the process of integrating sensory information might happen faster in the cerebral cortex than was previously thought. Wallace said that the ultimate goal of this research is to understand how the integration of multiple senses results in our behaviors and perceptions.

"It should come as no surprise when I say that we live in a multisensory world, being constantly bombarded with information from many senses. What is a bit of a surprise is that although we now know a great deal about how the brain processes information from the individual senses to form our perceptions, we're still in the early stages of understanding how this happens between the different senses. "

Wallace's co-researchers were Barry Stein, Ph.D., professor and chairman of neurobiology and anatomy at Wake Forest Baptist, and Ramnarayan Ramachandran at the University of California.

The project was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


2 Answers 2

To be visible the beam must either give off light itself, or excite the medium it is traveling through to give off light. In an atmosphere that would be the air. If the particles were dropping off energy in the air it could heat the air to glowing: this would be flames. If the particles very rapidly heated the air that would be analogous to lightning, and the rapid movement of air would be analogous to thunder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder

The sudden increase in pressure and temperature from lightning produces rapid expansion of the air within and surrounding the path of a lightning strike. In turn, this expansion of air creates a sonic shock wave, often referred to as a "thunderclap" or "peal of thunder".

As regards being visible in space, radiation to make them visible would have to come from the particle themselves. If you had enough mass of particles, perhaps in the process of their acceleration they would emit black body radiation according to their temperature.

A bolt of particle radiation would start out appearing white and then become redder as its constituent particles cooler during their journey. In a vacuum when the bolt became invisible because the particles had cooled they would have not lost any of their destructive power. You would need a metric boatload of particles for their glow to be visible in space. Your particle beam will converge on a superpowered shotgun shooting sand. More likely the particles would be less numerous and invisible.

If you used radon as your particle (as suggested below) or added some other intrinsically radioactive element you could follow the path of your beam if you had a device which could "see" in the frequencies emitted alpha particles if you use radon or you could dope your ray with cobalt or some other gamma ray emitter. Making these radioactive elements should not be tough since your particle beam presumably works like a cyclotron.

Particle radiation can traverse matter in its path, like the atmosphere, or a body. Or your target. The place where most energy is dropped off is determined by the mass of the particle (proton? carbon ion? radon ion?) and the charge of the particle which mediates much of the interaction between particle and medium/. That place is called the Bragg peak. To get your shot thru the atmosphere but stopping in your target means you will need to aim in 3 dimensions: both the 2 dimensions of your plane of view and also the distance to the target where you want your particle to drop its energy. You will need to take into consideration what you are shooting thru. It is not outrageous to shoot at a target deep in the water or underground if you can make the particles energetic enough to traverse those media.


Why are sight and sound out of sync?

The way we process sight and sound are curiously out of sync by different amounts for different people and tasks, according to a new study from City, University of London.

When investigating the effect the researchers found that speech comprehension can sometimes actually improve by as much as 10 per cent when sound is delayed relative to vision, and that different individuals consistently have uniquely different optimal delays for different tasks.

As a result, the authors suggest that by tailoring sound delays on an individual basis via a hearing aid or cochlear implant -- or a setting on a computer media player -- could have significant benefits for speech comprehension and enjoyment of multimedia. The study is published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

When the researchers at City looked deeper into this phenomenon, they kept finding a very curious pattern: different tasks benefitted from opposite delays, even in the same person. For example, the more an individual's vision lags their audition in the performance of one task (e.g., identifying speech sounds), conversely the more their audition is likely to lag vision in other tasks (e.g., deciding whether lips followed or preceded the speaker's voice). This finding provides new insight into how we determine when events actually occur in the world and the nature of perceptual timing in the brain.

When we see and hear a person speak, sensory signals travel via different pathways from our eyes and ears through the brain. The audiovisual asychronies measured in this study may occur because these sensory signals arrive at their different destinations in the brain at different times.

Yet how then do we ever know when the physical speech events actually happened in the world? The brain must have a way to solve this problem, given that we can still judge whether or not the original events are in sync with reasonable accuracy. For example, we are often able to easily identify when films have poor lip-sync.

Lead author Dr Elliot Freeman, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at City, University of London, proposes a solution based on an analogous 'multiple clocks' problem: "Imagine standing in an antique shop full of clocks, and you want to know what the time is. Your best guess comes from the average across clocks. However, if one clock is particularly slow, others will seem fast relative to it.

"In our new theory, which we call 'temporal renormalisation', the 'clocks' are analogous to different mechanisms in the brain which each receive sight and sound out of sync: but if one such mechanism is subject to an auditory delay, this will bias the average, relative to which other mechanisms may seem to have a visual delay. This theory explains the curious finding that different tasks show opposite delays it may also explain how we know when events in the world are actually happening, despite our brains having many conflicting estimates of their timing."

In their experiments, the researchers presented participants with audiovisual movies of a person speaking syllables, words or sentences, while varying the asynchrony of voice relative to lip movements. For each movie they measured their accuracy at identifying words spoken, or how strongly lip movements influenced what was heard.

In the latter case, the researchers exploited the McGurk illusion, where for example the phoneme 'ba' sounds like 'da' when mismatched with lip movements for 'ga'. They could then estimate the asynchrony that resulted in the maximal accuracy or strongest McGurk illusion. In a separate task, they also asked participants to judge whether the voice came before or after the lip movements, from which they could estimate the subjective asynchrony.

Speaking about the study, Dr Freeman said: "We often assume that the best way to comprehend speech is to match up what we hear with lip movements, and that this works best when sight and sound are simultaneous. However, our new study confirms that sight and sound really are out of sync by different amounts in different people. We also found that for some individuals, manually delaying voices relative to lip-movements could improve speech comprehension and the accuracy of word identification by 10% or more.

"This paper also introduces a new automated method for assessing individual audiovisual asynchronies, which could be administered over the internet or via an 'app'. Once an individual's perceptual asynchrony is measured, it may be corrected artificially with a tailored delay. This could be implemented via a hearing aid or cochlear implant, or a setting on a computer media player, with potential benefits for speech comprehension and enjoyment of multimedia.

"Asynchronous perception may impact on cognitive performance, and future studies could examine its associations with schizotypal personality traits, autism spectrum traits, and dyslexia."


Culture Makes Different Scales

Scales around the world use between four and seven notes in the octave with different sized intervals. The octave is double the frequency of the base, or main low note. The western scale breaks the octave into 12 semitones and then uses these to make eight steps, the eighth being the octave.

Indian classical music uses microtonal scales with steps smaller than the western semitone. This Indian scale divides the octave into srutis, the smallest interval a human can hear – one system has 22 steps. There are many other systems around the world. Modern synthesizers allow an infinite number of different scales and steps.

But if the interval between two notes becomes too small, it sounds dissonant, or unpleasant. This may be caused by the interference patterns of notes that are very similar creating a loud beating sound (sometimes this beating phenomenon of interfering air waves can occur while driving in a car, with certain arrangements of open windows.) This chaotic interference pattern, and our ear’s basilar membrane find this uncomfortable.

The brain of babies, animals and almost all cultures recognize the octave and maybe fifth as special. Consonance may be from convention, or it might be from interference patterns in the basal membrane of the ear. Some western scientists believe that western scale has the least dissonances, but this is probably determined culturally not scientifically. A question arises whether specific brain structures for acoustic processing are related to western composition techniques such as counterpoint – simultaneous different musical melodies where each moment the pair of notes are harmonious. But other researchers are convinced that all pleasure or dissonance of music is culturally trained.

Some believe that specific scales or chords express specific emotions, but this also is probably culturally determined. Music is “sad” when a major chord (major third interval – four half steps) becomes minor (minor third interval – three half steps). However, many “happy” pieces do this same thing in Hungarian, Spanish, Irish, Medieval church music, and troubadours.

In a future post, there will be more about emotional aspects and whether it is scientific or culturally determined.


Why Are Sight and Sound Out of Sync?

Summary: A new study reports speech comprehension can improve as much as 10% when sound is delayed relative to vision.

Source: City University London.

The way we process sight and sound are curiously out of sync by different amounts for different people and tasks, according to a new study from City, University of London.

When investigating the effect the researchers found that speech comprehension can sometimes actually improve by as much as 10 per cent when sound is delayed relative to vision, and that different individuals consistently have uniquely different optimal delays for different tasks.

As a result, the authors suggest that by tailoring sound delays on an individual basis via a hearing aid or cochlear implant – or a setting on a computer media player – could have significant benefits for speech comprehension and enjoyment of multimedia. The study is published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

When the researchers at City looked deeper into this phenomenon, they kept finding a very curious pattern: different tasks benefitted from opposite delays, even in the same person. For example, the more an individual’s vision lags their audition in the performance of one task (e.g., identifying speech sounds), conversely the more their audition is likely to lag vision in other tasks (e.g., deciding whether lips followed or preceded the speaker’s voice). This finding provides new insight into how we determine when events actually occur in the world and the nature of perceptual timing in the brain.

When we see and hear a person speak, sensory signals travel via different pathways from our eyes and ears through the brain. The audiovisual asychronies measured in this study may occur because these sensory signals arrive at their different destinations in the brain at different times.

Yet how then do we ever know when the physical speech events actually happened in the world? The brain must have a way to solve this problem, given that we can still judge whether or not the original events are in sync with reasonable accuracy. For example, we are often able to easily identify when films have poor lip-sync.

Lead author Dr Elliot Freeman, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at City, University of London, proposes a solution based on an analogous ‘multiple clocks’ problem: “Imagine standing in an antique shop full of clocks, and you want to know what the time is. Your best guess comes from the average across clocks. However, if one clock is particularly slow, others will seem fast relative to it.

“In our new theory, which we call ‘temporal renormalisation’, the ‘clocks’ are analogous to different mechanisms in the brain which each receive sight and sound out of sync: but if one such mechanism is subject to an auditory delay, this will bias the average, relative to which other mechanisms may seem to have a visual delay. This theory explains the curious finding that different tasks show opposite delays it may also explain how we know when events in the world are actually happening, despite our brains having many conflicting estimates of their timing.”

In their experiments, the researchers presented participants with audiovisual movies of a person speaking syllables, words or sentences, while varying the asynchrony of voice relative to lip movements. For each movie they measured their accuracy at identifying words spoken, or how strongly lip movements influenced what was heard.

In the latter case, the researchers exploited the McGurk illusion, where for example the phoneme ‘ba’ sounds like ‘da’ when mismatched with lip movements for ‘ga’. They could then estimate the asynchrony that resulted in the maximal accuracy or strongest McGurk illusion. In a separate task, they also asked participants to judge whether the voice came before or after the lip movements, from which they could estimate the subjective asynchrony.

Speaking about the study, Dr Freeman said: “We often assume that the best way to comprehend speech is to match up what we hear with lip movements, and that this works best when sight and sound are simultaneous. However, our new study confirms that sight and sound really are out of sync by different amounts in different people. We also found that for some individuals, manually delaying voices relative to lip-movements could improve speech comprehension and the accuracy of word identification by 10% or more.

In their experiments, the researchers presented participants with audiovisual movies of a person speaking syllables, words or sentences, while varying the asynchrony of voice relative to lip movements. For each movie they measured their accuracy at identifying words spoken, or how strongly lip movements influenced what was heard. NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain.

“This paper also introduces a new automated method for assessing individual audiovisual asynchronies, which could be administered over the internet or via an ‘app’. Once an individual’s perceptual asynchrony is measured, it may be corrected artificially with a tailored delay. This could be implemented via a hearing aid or cochlear implant, or a setting on a computer media player, with potential benefits for speech comprehension and enjoyment of multimedia.


Standard 5: Health

The program promotes the nutrition and health of children and protects children and staff from illness and injury. Children must be healthy and safe in order to learn and grow. Programs must be healthy and safe to support children’s healthy development.

What to look for in a program:

  • Teaching staff have training in pediatric first aid.
  • Infants are placed on their backs to sleep.
  • The program has policies regarding regular hand washing and routinely cleans and sanitizes all surfaces in the facility.
  • There is a clear plan for responding to illness, including how to decide whether a child needs to go home and how families will be notified.
  • Snacks and meals are nutritious, and food is prepared and stored safely.

Sight & Sound: the November 2014 issue

Mike Leigh gets Romantic, Darwinian sci-fi and the birth of the Method. Plus Nightcrawler, ’71, Gone Girl, Steven Soderbergh’s TV drama The Knick, the Venice and Toronto film festivals, agnès b, Zabriskie Point, Gregory J. Markopoulos and much more.

In print and digital from 3 October.

What do Romantic painter J.M.W. Turner, evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin and radical stage impresario Constantin Stanislavski have in common? All three form the inspirations for our movie subjects this month: Mike Leigh’s wonderful portrait of the painter Mr. Turner, the BFI’s monster sci-fi season and ‘the Method’ – the revolution in American acting that upturned post-war Hollywood…

Posted to subscribers and available digitally 3 October

On UK newsstands 7 October

“There are hundreds of actors out there who are not bright and who just play themselves,” cinema’s surly master Mike Leigh tells Isabel Stevens, explaining why consummate character actor and working-class Londoner Timothy Spall was the right man to play the “very little” Turner – “a passionate poetic clairvoyant” and “very mortal, eccentric curmudgeon”. Mr. Turner marks Leigh’s second adventure into 19th-century artists’ biopic, after Topsy-Turvy, and in the words of our review Kate Stables, it’s “both a paean to stubbornly personal late works and a glorious example of one.” Leigh opens up on the film’s whys and hows, from putting pigment on film to improvising with 19th-century language, while Michael Brooke widens our lens on the history of movies about artists and sculptors.

“Since science-fiction films are so bound up with the spectacular special effect,” writes Roger Luckhurst in Darwin’s Nightmares, the first of two features we publish this month to mark the forthcoming BFI blockbuster season Sci-Fi: Days of Fear and Wonder, “perhaps it is unsurprising that this cinema repeatedly returns to scenes of biological transformation… rendering magically visible the otherwise hidden springs of gradual evolution.” Tracing back the origins of the genre to the shock of Darwinian biology, Luckhurst offers four key chapters in the history of sci-fi cinema, from the materialist transgressions of Frankenstein et al, via the mutant monsters of atomic-era paranoia, and selfish genetics of 1980s body horror, to our new biotech century’s formally ambiguous ‘boundary crawlers’.

Overleaf, in The Future is Here, Jonathan Rosenbaum essays a different taxonomy of sci-fi cinema, taking as his premise J.G. Ballard’s diatribe against Star Wars and his differentiation between big-budget sfx-driven spectaculars and often more low-budget but conceptually imaginative endeavours, from Them! to Alphaville.

Also showing soon c/o the BFI, our latest Deep Focus primer investigates ‘the Method’ – or rather, methods: the new mode of realism in performance that emerged from Lee Strasberg’s Actors Studio in the 1940s and early 50s, itself inspired by the Stanislavski System developed at the turn of the 20th century by the Russian theatre theorist and practitioner at the Moscow Art Theatre. Montgomery Clift, Marlon Brando and James Dean – “the exquisite Method triumvirate – became perhaps the most widely imitated actors in film history,” writes Foster Hirsch. “To this day actors who strive to create an illusion of spontaneity and emotional depth on camera are working in a ‘line’ established by their iconic performances.” James Bell follows on with 12 movie case studies, all screening at the BFI Southbank from 25 October to 30 November.

Also in this issue: Steven Soderbergh’s new TV medico-historical TV drama The Knick the trials of Effie Gray Crazed Fruit director Nakahira Ko ’71 director Yann Demange the ending of Zabriskie Point black film posters designer-turned-director agnès b in defence of Lauren Bacall roller-skates much more…


How to Boost Student Engagement with Multisensory Reading Activities

Using multisensory activities to teach reading skills can help engage students in your lessons, particularly if you’re teaching struggling or reluctant readers.[18] Depending on the student, you can try a variety of fun reading activities that involve multiple senses.

Try these five reading strategies to teach literacy skills with the best elements of whole brain learning:

  • When reading a book as a class, try putting on an audio recording or watching a clip of a storyteller performing it [19]
  • Have students build vocabulary words using letter magnets as a tactile activity [20]
  • Instead of always assigning students print books to take home, try giving audiobook or video assignments as well [21]
  • Have students make their own illustrations to accompany vocabulary words or simple sentences that they write
  • Teach students to sound out words while pointing at each letter to solidify a link between sounds and print letters [22]

The Libra Foundation. Why is Early Literacy Important? Retrieved from raisingreaders.org: https://www.raisingreaders.org/understanding-early-literacy/why-is-early-literacy-important/.[1]

The American Institutes for Research. Learning to Read with Multimedia Materials. Retrieved from ctdinstitute.org: https://www.ctdinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/CITEd%20-%20Learning%20to%20Read%20with%20Multimedia%20Materials%20FINAL.pdf.[2]

Blomert, L., and Froyen, D. Multi-sensory learning and learning to read. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 77(3), September 2010, pp. 195-204.[3]

Shams, L., and Seitz, A.R. Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 60, November 2008, pp. 411-17.[4]

Başar, E. The theory of the whole-brain-work. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60, March 2006, pp. 133-38.[5]

Minnesota Literacy Council. Multisensory Activities to Teach Reading Skills. Retrieved from mnliteracy.org: https://mnliteracy.org/sites/default/files/multisensory_techniques_to_teach_reading_skills.pdf.[6]

Blomert, L., and Froyen, D. Multi-sensory learning and learning to read. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 77(3), September 2010, pp. 195-204.[8]

International Dyslexia Association. Multisensory Structured Language Teaching Fact Sheet. Retrieved from dyslexiaida.org: https://dyslexiaida.org/multisensory-structured-language-teaching-fact-sheet/.[9]

Smith, G.J., Booth, J.R., and McNorgan, C. Longitudinal Task-Related Functional Connectivity Changes Predict Reading Development. Frontiers in Psychology, 60, September 2018.[10]

The American Institutes for Research. Learning to Read with Multimedia Materials. Retrieved from ctdinstitute.org: https://www.ctdinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/CITEd%20-%20Learning%20to%20Read%20with%20Multimedia%20Materials%20FINAL.pdf.[11]

Minnesota Literacy Council. Multisensory Activities to Teach Reading Skills. Retrieved from mnliteracy.org: https://mnliteracy.org/sites/default/files/multisensory_techniques_to_teach_reading_skills.pdf.[13]

Gardner, H., and Hatch, T. Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Educational Reader, 8(8), November 1989, pp. 4-10.[14]

Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. The theory of multiple intelligences. In R.J. Sternberg & S.B. Kaufman, Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, 2011, pp. 485-503.[15]

Ozdemir, P., Guneysu, S., and Tekkaya, C. Enhancing Learning through Multiple Intelligences. Journal of Biological Education, 2006, 40(2), pp. 74-78.[17]


Watch the video: Ο ήχος κάποιου αντικειμένου η προσώπου ακούγεται πριν εμφανιστεί η εικόνα του αντικειμένου η της ει (May 2022).