日日人人_亚洲美女在线视频_av手机在线播放_国产大片aaa_欧美中文日韩_午夜理伦三级

We hear with our ears, right? Yes, but scientists have known for years that we also hear with our eyes. In a study published in 1976, researchers found that people combined both auditory cues(聽力提示) and visual ones，like mouth and face movements, when they heard speech.
A new study that looks at a different set of sensory cues adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests such combination is natural. In a paper, Bryan Gick and Donald Derrick report that people can hear with their skin.
The researchers had volunteers listen to spoken syllables. Meanwhile, they connected the volunteers to a device that would blow a tiny puff (氣流) of air onto the skin of their hands or necks. The syllables included “ba” and “pa”, which produce brief puffs from the mouth when spoken, and “da” and “ta,” which do not produce puffs. They found that when listeners heard “da” or “ta” while a puff of air was blown onto their skin, they considered the sounds as “ba” or “pa”.
Dr. Gick said the findings were similar to those from the 1976 study, in which visual cues defeated auditory ones — volunteers listened to one syllable but thought it another because they were watching a video of mouth movements corresponding to the second syllable. In his study，he said，cues from sensory receivers on the skin defeated the ears as well. “Our skin is doing the hearing for us,” he said.
Dr. Gick noted that it would normally be rare that someone actually sensed a puff of air produced by another, although people might occasionally sense their own puffs. “What’s so persuasive about this particular effect,” he added. “is that people are picking up on this information that they don’t know they are using.” That supports the idea that combining different sensory cues is natural.
Dr. Gick said the finding also suggested that other sensory cues might be at work in speech perception(知覺) — that, as he put it, “we are these fantastic perception machines that take in all the information available to us and combine it faultlessly.”
【小題1】“Da” or “ta” were considered as “ba” or “pa” when __________.

A．they were spoken quickly

B．puffs of air were blown onto the listener’s skin

C．they were pronounced using a special device

D．they were made with face movements

【小題2】Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A．Humans combine different sensory cues through experience.

B．Dr. Gick’s new study is more important than the one in 1976.

C．People sometimes can sense their own puffs when speaking

D．Only auditory and visual cues are at work in speech perception.

【小題3】What is the best title of the text?

A．We Can Hear with Our Skin

B．Our Visual Cues Is Doing the Hearing for Us

C．Facial Expressions Are Important

D．We Are Fantastic Machines

We hear with our ears, right? Yes, but scientists have known for years that we also hear with our eyes. In a study published in 1976, researchers found that people combined both auditory cues(聽力提示) and visual ones，like mouth and face movements, when they heard speech.

A new study that looks at a different set of sensory cues adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests such combination is natural. In a paper, Bryan Gick and Donald Derrick report that people can hear with their skin.

The researchers had volunteers listen to spoken syllables. Meanwhile, they connected the volunteers to a device that would blow a tiny puff (氣流) of air onto the skin of their hands or necks. The syllables included “ba” and “pa”, which produce brief puffs from the mouth when spoken, and “da” and “ta,” which do not produce puffs. They found that when listeners heard “da” or “ta” while a puff of air was blown onto their skin, they considered the sounds as “ba” or “pa”.

Dr. Gick said the findings were similar to those from the 1976 study, in which visual cues defeated auditory ones — volunteers listened to one syllable but thought it another because they were watching a video of mouth movements corresponding to the second syllable. In his study，he said，cues from sensory receivers on the skin defeated the ears as well. “Our skin is doing the hearing for us,” he said.

Dr. Gick noted that it would normally be rare that someone actually sensed a puff of air produced by another, although people might occasionally sense their own puffs. “What’s so persuasive about this particular effect,” he added. “is that people are picking up on this information that they don’t know they are using.” That supports the idea that combining different sensory cues is natural.

Dr. Gick said the finding also suggested that other sensory cues might be at work in speech perception(知覺) — that, as he put it, “we are these fantastic perception machines that take in all the information available to us and combine it faultlessly.”

1.“Da” or “ta” were considered as “ba” or “pa” when __________.

A. they were spoken quickly

B. puffs of air were blown onto the listener’s skin

C. they were pronounced using a special device

D. they were made with face movements

2.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A. Humans combine different sensory cues through experience.

B. Dr. Gick’s new study is more important than the one in 1976.

C. People sometimes can sense their own puffs when speaking

D. Only auditory and visual cues are at work in speech perception.

3.What is the best title of the text?

A. We Can Hear with Our Skin

B. Our Visual Cues Is Doing the Hearing for Us

C. Facial Expressions Are Important

D. We Are Fantastic Machines

 

We hear with our ears, right? Yes, but scientists have known for years that we also hear with our eyes. In a study published in 1976, researchers found that people combined both auditory cues(聽力提示) and visual ones，like mouth and face movements, when they heard speech.

A new study that looks at a different set of sensory cues adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests such combination is natural. In a paper, Bryan Gick and Donald Derrick report that people can hear with their skin.

The researchers had volunteers listen to spoken syllables. Meanwhile, they connected the volunteers to a device that would blow a tiny puff (氣流) of air onto the skin of their hands or necks. The syllables included “ba” and “pa”, which produce brief puffs from the mouth when spoken, and “da” and “ta,” which do not produce puffs. They found that when listeners heard “da” or “ta” while a puff of air was blown onto their skin, they considered the sounds as “ba” or “pa”.

Dr. Gick said the findings were similar to those from the 1976 study, in which visual cues defeated auditory ones — volunteers listened to one syllable but thought it another because they were watching a video of mouth movements corresponding to the second syllable. In his study，he said，cues from sensory receivers on the skin defeated the ears as well. “Our skin is doing the hearing for us,” he said.

Dr. Gick noted that it would normally be rare that someone actually sensed a puff of air produced by another, although people might occasionally sense their own puffs. “What’s so persuasive about this particular effect,” he added. “is that people are picking up on this information that they don’t know they are using.” That supports the idea that combining different sensory cues is natural.

Dr. Gick said the finding also suggested that other sensory cues might be at work in speech perception(知覺) — that, as he put it, “we are these fantastic perception machines that take in all the information available to us and combine it faultlessly.”

“Da” or “ta” were considered as “ba” or “pa” when __________.

A. they were spoken quickly

B. puffs of air were blown onto the listener’s skin

C. they were pronounced using a special device

D. they were made with face movements

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A. Humans combine different sensory cues through experience.

B. Dr. Gick’s new study is more important than the one in 1976.

C. People sometimes can sense their own puffs when speaking

D. Only auditory and visual cues are at work in speech perception.

What is the best title of the text?

A. We Can Hear with Our Skin

B. Our Visual Cues Is Doing the Hearing for Us

C. Facial Expressions Are Important

D. We Are Fantastic Machines

 

第四部分：任務型閱讀(共10小題；每小題l分，滿分10分)

請認真閱讀下列短文，并根據所讀內容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一個最恰當的單詞。注意：每個空格只填1個單詞。請將答案寫在答題卡上相應題號的橫線上。

Experts debunk Maya doomsday（末日） predictions -- But that hasn't stopped books, movies from cashing in.

If the ancient Maya and filmmaker Roland Emmerich are correct, the apocalypse（大災變） will happen very fast, maybe quicker than his new 2½-hour movie.

Predictions of global ruination are rippling around the globe with seismic（地震的） force, all loosely based on a 5,000-year Maya calendar that ends Dec. 21, 2012. Countless Web sites and blogs anticipate(預料) the end of days, as do various New Age groups and would-be prophets(預言者) offering guidance and how-to tips. On Amazon.com , you can read hundreds of book titles combining the year 2012 with terms such as “apocalypse,” “catastrophe” and “end of the world.”

As always, doomsday sells — and a lot of people are buying it.

“There's the psychobabble(心理囈語) aspect,” said Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today magazine and a lecturer at the University of California San Diego. “It's the Sigmund Freud/death wish idea: People glom onto（對…感興趣） doomsday predictions because there's some small part of them that wants to die, and die spectacularly（壯觀的）. I don't believe it, but it's one way to look at this.”

It's Emmerich's way. The German director specializes in wreaking havoc on an epic scale, from climatic cataclysm in 2004's “The Day After Tomorrow” to angry aliens and reptiles in “Independence Day” and “Godzilla.”  In “2012,” he finishes the job.

The digitized disasters of “2012” are oversized, overwrought and sometimes literally over the top, as when a humongous tsunami washes over the Himalayan mountains, whose average height exceeds 20,000 feet. Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a 10.5-magnitude earthquake — a temblor at least 30 times more powerful than any real quake ever recorded — yanks the city apart like a giant zipper, sending chunks sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

That's not physically possible, of course. Nor is a 10.5-magnitude quake, said Thomas Rockwell, a geologist at San Diego State University. To generate that much energy, “you'd need a rupture that extends all around the planet.”

All of that other stuff “is pure Hollywood bunk,” said Bernard Jackson at the UCSD Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences.

Entertaining, though, unless you happen to believe the Maya really predicted the end of the world. They didn't, said Geoff Braswell, a UCSD anthropologist. The long-count calendar doesn't signal the end of anything except the end of that particular calendar. “It's just like a car odometer. Unfortunately, hardly anybody reads ancient Mayan. Modern media hype（騙局）, on the other hand, is almost inescapable.

Nicholas Christenfeld, a professor of psychology at UCSD, suggests a more elemental human need. Being swallowed by the Earth or incinerated in a giant fireball “fits neatly with the idea that people want to believe there's a plan, that existence isn't random and pointless,” Christenfeld said.

“We all missed creation, but if we can bear witness at the other end, be part of some grand cosmic destruction, that gives life meaning,” he said. 

It helps, too, not to think very hard about the facts, said Lou Manza, a professor of psychology at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa. “These claims have been around forever, and they have all been false, 100 percent wrong,” Manza said.

Of course, prognosticators（預言者, 占卜者） usually have an explanation for that, Christenfeld said.

“They might say it was a misinterpretation,” he said. “They got the date wrong. They might claim humanity acted in time to prevent the destruction. Or faith came to the rescue because people believed something bad was going to happen, it didn't have to happen.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experts debunk Maya doomsday（末日） predictions -- But that hasn't stopped books, movies from cashing in.

If the ancient Maya and filmmaker Roland Emmerich are correct, the apocalypse（大災變） will happen very fast, maybe quicker than his new 2½-hour movie.

Predictions of global ruination are rippling around the globe with seismic（地震的） force, all loosely based on a 5,000-year Maya calendar that ends Dec. 21, 2012. Countless Web sites and blogs anticipate(預料) the end of days, as do various New Age groups and would-be prophets(預言者) offering guidance and how-to tips. On Amazon.com , you can read hundreds of book titles combining the year 2012 with terms such as “apocalypse,” “catastrophe” and “end of the world.”

As always, doomsday sells — and a lot of people are buying it.

“There's the psychobabble(心理囈語) aspect,” said Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today magazine and a lecturer at the University of California San Diego. “It's the Sigmund Freud/death wish idea: People glom onto（對…感興趣） doomsday predictions because there's some small part of them that wants to die, and die spectacularly（壯觀的）. I don't believe it, but it's one way to look at this.”

It's Emmerich's way. The German director specializes in wreaking havoc on an epic scale, from climatic cataclysm in 2004's “The Day After Tomorrow” to angry aliens and reptiles in “Independence Day” and “Godzilla.”  In “2012,” he finishes the job.

The digitized disasters of “2012” are oversized, overwrought and sometimes literally over the top, as when a humongous tsunami washes over the Himalayan mountains, whose average height exceeds 20,000 feet. Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a 10.5-magnitude earthquake — a temblor at least 30 times more powerful than any real quake ever recorded — yanks the city apart like a giant zipper, sending chunks sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

That's not physically possible, of course. Nor is a 10.5-magnitude quake, said Thomas Rockwell, a geologist at San Diego State University. To generate that much energy, “you'd need a rupture that extends all around the planet.”

All of that other stuff “is pure Hollywood bunk,” said Bernard Jackson at the UCSD Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences.

Entertaining, though, unless you happen to believe the Maya really predicted the end of the world. They didn't, said Geoff Braswell, a UCSD anthropologist. The long-count calendar doesn't signal the end of anything except the end of that particular calendar. “It's just like a car odometer. Unfortunately, hardly anybody reads ancient Mayan. Modern media hype（騙局）, on the other hand, is almost inescapable.

Nicholas Christenfeld, a professor of psychology at UCSD, suggests a more elemental human need. Being swallowed by the Earth or incinerated in a giant fireball “fits neatly with the idea that people want to believe there's a plan, that existence isn't random and pointless,” Christenfeld said.

“We all missed creation, but if we can bear witness at the other end, be part of some grand cosmic destruction, that gives life meaning,” he said. 

It helps, too, not to think very hard about the facts, said Lou Manza, a professor of psychology at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa. “These claims have been around forever, and they have all been false, 100 percent wrong,” Manza said.

Of course, prognosticators（預言者, 占卜者） usually have an explanation for that, Christenfeld said.

“They might say it was a misinterpretation,” he said. “They got the date wrong. They might claim humanity acted in time to prevent the destruction. Or faith came to the rescue because people believed something bad was going to happen, it didn't have to happen.”