Can you detect other people's subvocalization?

  • Thread starter staticclean
  • Start date
In summary: I just shoot.I've had that problem trying to explain why I took what most people would consider an extremely bizarre pool shot as opposed to something more sensible. All that I can say is "it felt right", whereas the reality is that I "see" the trajectories of the balls as little glowing lines superimposed upon the surface of the table before I make the shot.... and then I just shoot.
  • #1
staticclean
1
0
How do other people detect other people's subvocaliztion? Because i use to subvocalize and some people have heard me subvocalize. But now I'm learning to thinking in words, in other words pitcures the words in my mind. The way i use to think, i would either talk out loud to myself which I'm trying to stop doing, or i would subvocalize in my throat, because i don't know how to subvocalize in my mind. What are your thoughts on this subject? What i don't understand is, is how can people hear you subvocalizing. I've heard people say about me that, "He's talking in the back of his throat". Also, what's the difference between subvocalizing and thinking in words?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I must admit that I've never heard of "subvocalization" within the context that you outlined. I've always thought of it as "whispering" or, in extreme instances, the thing that ventriloquists do wherein they manage to speak clearly without visibly moving their mouths.
 
  • #3
I dunno, I think in images+feelings, not words. o_O Silly humans. :3
 
  • #4
staticclean said:
What i don't understand is, is how can people hear you subvocalizing. I've heard people say about me that, "He's talking in the back of his throat". Also, what's the difference between subvocalizing and thinking in words?
They probably know because you're moving your mouth and they can't hear a definite sound?
Thinking in words allows you to think faster since you're not restricted by how fast your mouth can move. However, subvocalizing let's you remember better because a vocal noise would be more effective than having a word go through your brain. That's how it works for me anyways, but I rarely if ever think in words or subvocalize.
 
  • #5
Images and feelings, that's quite interesting. For many years the only way in which i know how to think is by closing my mouth and "speaking silently".
 
  • #6
staticclean said:
Images and feelings, that's quite interesting. For many years the only way in which i know how to think is by closing my mouth and "speaking silently".

It's apparently normal for people to develop their thinking along the lines of language, but some people, myself included, think in pictures, I don't know if other people think in images+feelings though. ^_^
 
  • #7
staticclean said:
Images and feelings, that's quite interesting. For many years the only way in which i know how to think is by closing my mouth and "speaking silently".

Everyone thinks using an internal monologue to steer and scaffold their thoughts. If you are interested in the psychological theory, google Lev Vygotsky. YN Sokolov researched subvocalisation in particular using electrodes to record from throat muscles.

Deaf people have to learn to think using "silent" or internalised signing. Kinesthetic imagery.
 
  • #8
Hmmmm... this is becoming intriguing.
My thought processes apparently adapt themselves to the situation at hand. I've never even given consideration to it, since I figured that it's the same way that everyone does it.
If I want to create a scene through art, or remember a scene that I've witnessed, I "see" it in my mind. I also remember the smells and sounds associated with it.
When I'm designing a machine, I see the finished product operating, but also see "blueprints" in my head.
When I'm writing factual things in a literary sense, I see words printed on my "internal viewscreen", and even in the font that I'm using. When writing fictions, I see the action and hear the characters voice their own lines before I write them.
PF, although it's visual, is the same as regular speech to me; I hear my own upcoming words in my head, and then type them up.
 
  • #9
G037H3 said:
It's apparently normal for people to develop their thinking along the lines of language, but some people, myself included, think in pictures, I don't know if other people think in images+feelings though. ^_^

I developed that sort of thinking for solving physics problems. It's *much* faster than 'talking' through a problem in my head. It was a big help when I was in school, with very long homework sets to work through.

The problem I had with it, though, was when I try to explain to someone how I solved a problem. I found it very tough to translate my "math-think" into words.
 
  • #10
lisab said:
The problem I had with it, though, was when I try to explain to someone how I solved a problem. I found it very tough to translate my "math-think" into words.

I've had that problem trying to explain why I took what most people would consider an extremely bizarre pool shot as opposed to something more sensible. All that I can say is "it felt right", whereas the reality is that I "see" the trajectories of the balls as little glowing lines superimposed upon the surface of the table before I make the shot. (Not literally see them on the table, but on my mental image of the table.)
That last sentence brings something to mind which I again always thought that everyone does, but now I'm starting to wonder. Everything that I see in real-life is automatically overlaid with an exact duplicate which I can manipulate in my imagination to form special effects, pseudo-stoned hallucinations, whatever. Am I now to understand that not everyone does that?
 
  • #11
If people are hearing you speak and can understand you, apparently you are talking out loud without realizing it. I do that all of the time and when people ask me what I'm talking about, I realize my thoughts must have been out loud without me realizing it. I know a lot of people that "think out loud".
 
  • #12
staticclean said:
Images and feelings, that's quite interesting. For many years the only way in which i know how to think is by closing my mouth and "speaking silently".

Good thing you close your mouth, otherwise lip readers would be able to read your thoughts.
 
  • #13
apeiron said:
Deaf people have to learn to think using "silent" or internalised signing. Kinesthetic imagery.

I had honestly never thought of that. When I think I have my 'internal monologue' as you put it, which is how I perceive everyone to think (in their own language), but I have never given any thought to a person who doesn't have a spoken language.
 
  • #14
lisab said:
The problem I had with it, though, was when I try to explain to someone how I solved a problem. I found it very tough to translate my "math-think" into words.

I agree with that, I can visualise a solution in my mind and know exactly what I'm doing. But when it comes to explaining it to someone, I just can't get the words out. Although I get it with much more than maths.

For example, I'll know the solution to a problem (mechanics, computers etc) but just can't put it into words. Blooming nightmare trying to give someone help over the phone.
 
  • #15
jarednjames said:
I agree with that, I can visualise a solution in my mind and know exactly what I'm doing. But when it comes to explaining it to someone, I just can't get the words out. Although I get it with much more than maths.

For example, I'll know the solution to a problem (mechanics, computers etc) but just can't put it into words. Blooming nightmare trying to give someone help over the phone.

Oh I never thought of that...over the phone would be impossible!
 
  • #16
lisab said:
Good thing you close your mouth, otherwise lip readers would be able to read your thoughts.

In a way that's what i had a real problem with, I'm glad you pointed that out. Because i use to, if i may use this term, "Ventriliquist think". In other words, i would speak in my mouth, not my mind and lip readers were actually able to "Hear" my thinking. I wasn't thinking in my head but my mouth, now I'm slowly learning to use my inner voice in my mind, talking in my head. Though its hard sometimes. I know that people can't read thoughts, but people have always said that they could hear me in the back of my throat. I know that your larynx is the main speech muscle that allows you to talk? I think that's one way they heard, plus as another poster in this thread said, about talking out loud or something, that's what i was actually doing was talking out loud without realizing it. My sister and are so close that at one time, i was breathing through the wrong pipe, in my throat, and i was singing, and i heard her say to someone that she can hear the real voices, the real singing voices. What I'm trying to say is she could hear the actual song as it is in real music, not just a person singing. I'm very good when i sing in my head, at singing in the exact same voice as the real singer his or herself, as well as the instruments themselves, all the way to the exact note and tune, as if the song was really playing. I can also imitate anyone's voice i hear, i can speak in my head and sound just like the person that was just talking, just by thinking the words. I can even imitate animal sounds in my mind, I'm not saying this is something special because I'm sure that other people can do these things as well.
 
  • #17
Are you a musician, staticclean?
 
  • #18
i think it is quite normal to "think" using internalizations of all your senses. educators even recognize "kinesthetic" learners. if you really want to lay down some pathways for learning, then not only read, but also speak/hear, write/draw the same material.
 
  • #19
lisab said:
Are you a musician, staticclean?

No, but i love music and when i was in grade school a few decades ago, i was in the school in the band and played the saxaphone and adapted very well.
 
  • #20
apeiron said:
Everyone thinks using an internal monologue to steer and scaffold their thoughts. If you are interested in the psychological theory, google Lev Vygotsky. YN Sokolov researched subvocalisation in particular using electrodes to record from throat muscles.

This sounds like a theory by those that rarely think in anything else but words and therefore think everybody else does the same. When I daydream physics, it never involves words but images and 'structures'.

As Lisab says much the same, to put these thoughts in words involves some difficult translating.
 
  • #21
Phrak said:
This sounds like a theory by those that rarely think in anything else but words and therefore think everybody else does the same.

Not at all. That is why the stress was on "steer" and "scaffold". We of course can generate mental imagery (anticipatory states) in any sensory modality. But only humans have speech and so an interior mechanism to generate anticipatory states in a controlled and context-independent fashion.
 

Related to Can you detect other people's subvocalization?

1. Can subvocalization be detected without any external devices?

Currently, there is no known way to detect subvocalization without the use of external devices. This is because subvocalization occurs within the body and cannot be directly observed or measured.

2. What type of technology is used to detect subvocalization?

The most common technology used to detect subvocalization is electromyography (EMG). This involves placing electrodes on the skin to measure the electrical activity of the muscles involved in subvocalization.

3. How accurate is subvocalization detection?

The accuracy of subvocalization detection depends on a variety of factors, including the sensitivity of the technology used and the clarity of the subvocalization signals. Generally, it is considered to be a relatively accurate method of detecting speech.

4. Can subvocalization be used as a form of communication?

While subvocalization can be detected and translated into words, it is not a reliable form of communication. This is because the signals can be easily disrupted by external factors such as background noise or changes in the person's physical state.

5. Are there any ethical concerns surrounding the use of subvocalization detection?

As with any new technology, there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of subvocalization detection. These include issues of privacy, consent, and potential misuse of the technology for surveillance or manipulation purposes.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
909
Replies
5
Views
794
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
954
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
991
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
720
Back
Top