Live data from Hacker News

Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

sciencemag.org

161–170 of 263 posts

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#161
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exceedingly slow narration, particularly what's normal for audiobooks, is annoying to me because it's slower than I process words. It's like walking with someone whose pace is far slower than your natural gait -- it takes more energy and concentration to slow down. It's why slow-talkers are so annoying. This isn't "how fast can I go through this" but "what is a comfortable pace"? So I bump the speed up, though usuall…

I'm totally with you, I speak at effectively 1.5x in real life, so that's what feels natural to me listening. But I get turned off if something needs to be sped up _beyond_ reasonable human speaking speed to be palatable, like 2.5x or 3x. It's like putting a pile of salt on really bland food. I get the feeling that I'm panning for gold.

I can't keep up with fast talkers and I like my books and movies at nominal speeds. When things are fast I can't pay attention. My brain needs to extra cycles to wander and consume and let my focus be split.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#162
I didn't know the but rate, but I learned this studying in computational linguistics. Languages that seem "fast" tend to have more phonemes per semantic unit than "slow" languages. In general, languages with a lower lexicon of phonemes require more of them to make a "word", they get spoken faster. So the semantic units per period of time remains fairly constant across languages.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#163
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can watch YouTube content at 3x without issue. I did this without much intentional effort - I simply downloaded an extension which allows me to speed up the video in increments of 0.1x using a keyboard shortcut. Whenever it felt slow I would speed it up, and whenever it felt too fast I would slow it down. Without paying much attention to the actual numbers I had reached over 3x within a month or so.

I tried this right now with the trick below. 2x was no issue but 3x... that was a big step. It sounded like word salad. As if my brain was decoding the words out of order and was unable to assemble them into sentences.

OP did it over a month, not a single session.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exceedingly slow narration, particularly what's normal for audiobooks, is annoying to me because it's slower than I process words. It's like walking with someone whose pace is far slower than your natural gait -- it takes more energy and concentration to slow down. It's why slow-talkers are so annoying. This isn't "how fast can I go through this" but "what is a comfortable pace"? So I bump the speed up, though usuall…

That's interesting. If you're talking about Hello Internet, I enjoy listening to them at 1x. I find it quite relaxing to listen to passively.

To date, this is the only podcast I can actually enjoy. I generally do other things while listening, and feel like I'm in the company of friends.

It undoubtedly has a relatively low density of information however I wouldn't speed it up, I would slow it down!

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#166
post #124
post #15

But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. Some years ago I worked on an accessibility project for an app and website designed for people with disabilities. One…

It's easy to train yourself to do that though. Just find your favorite audiobook and listen to it daily. First listen to it at 1.5x, then adjust to 2x after a few days, then 2.5x after a few more days etc. You'd be surprised how fast your brain can actually process the information. Personally when I did this I feel irritated when I speak because my sped-up audiobooks have conditioned me into thinking I should be spea…

I recommend. .2 step increases as .5 is too much. I also recommend silence skipping if your player supports it.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#167
post #15

But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. Some years ago I worked on an accessibility project for an app and website designed for people with disabilities. One…

>But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we’re likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That’s because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension.

The deduction that is quoted does not follow: speeding up audio recordings with 120% results pressing both the auditory system as the language and thought systems (or any other potential bottleneck) to be sped up proportionally since it's a pipeline.

Similarily the posted article (I have yet to read the original one) states in the title that "human speech" has a universal transmission rate, but the research tested reading not speech, so this may or may not be true.

Perhaps the bottleneck is human speech, with the side effect that listening is never trained beyond the typical speech rate limit. (in this case the higher speed syllable languages would be easier to pronounce fast, and the lower speed ones harder to pronounce fast)

Perhaps the bottleneck was in the visual burden of reading, a language that encodes more bits per syllable implies more types of syllables, which irrespective of size or number of characters puts a classification demand on the visual system (classifying a symbol coming from a set of only 2 symbols will be easier, but will require more classification instances than classifying from a large set of characters but with fewer classification instances).

Perhaps the bottleneck was again in speech during reading by subconscious vocalizing of the text.

Perhaps the bottleneck was in the auditory "speech to syllable" classification.

Perhaps the bottleneck was in parsing text.

Perhaps the bottleneck was in "accessing thoughts" etc.

So it is rather hard to identify where the bottleneck is located without having a means of detecting where in the brain the "incoming queue is full" vs "incoming queue is waiting" during speaking, listening, reading. And which of these 3 causes this universal bottleneck (since I gave 2 examples of how an apparent bottleneck in reading could stem from not being trained beyond a possible universal bottleneck in speaking rate...)

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did everyone assume it would be the same on average? This seems weird to me. Also, can you explain more about how the information density was calculated? Anything at the bit level seems crazy small to me. Words convey a lot of information. They cause your brain to create images, sounds, emotions, smells, etc. I guess we're calling language a compression of that? But even still, bits seems small.

> Why did everyone assume it would be the same on average? This seems weird to me. (see edit below; but i leave this up; it might be interesting, also) you mean that even for smaller sequences, the UID holds, right? the assumption was that even for a single sentence, there are a lot of ways to reduce or increase information density so that you get a smoother signal. e.g.: "It is clear that we have to help them to mov…

> esp. in spontaneous spoken language, then the information rate should be about the same.

This is entirely non-intuitive to me. I would think with language evolving that some would be faster than others. If language starts as conveying extremely simple thoughts then it should take longer to convey certain things. I would then assume that as the language develops it gets better at conveying ideas. I would think that thoughts could go much faster than how we process it with language. Like I have constant thoughts that are really fast and can be complex. There's no internal dialogue there. But when I think with an internal dialogue it is much slower.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#169
post #160
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the blind dev who refactored a huge chunk of the Rust compiler [0]. I'm at roughly 800 words a minute with a synth, with the proven ability to top out at 1219. 800 or so is the norm among programmers. In order to get it we normally end up using older synths which sound way less natural because modern synthesis techniques can't go that fast. There's a trade-off between natural sounding and 500+ words a minute, and…

Wow, that's incredible. Do you find it frustrating talking to actual humans now? I'd imagine it feels like they're speaking in slow motion. Edit: Hah, just saw your post on talking faster to other people who have the same audio skills.

Other people in realtime aren't...I guess the best way I have to put it is informationally sparse. There's a lot going on beside what's being said in conversation. Synths don't imply things for example; in a context with active implication slowing/pausing the synth is sometimes necessary. The skill doesn't extend beyond the blatant transfer of information. In social contexts and especially when you can't go off any visual cues whatsoever to figure out what the other person is thinking/feeling, there's a lot more going on than simple information transfer.

However most blind people I know who do this start hating audiobooks, start hating talks, and generally by far prefer the text option. audiobooks aren't annoying, but they're below my baud if you will. Net result: boredom/falling asleep to whatever it is and the need to actively make an effort to listen. Some things which require active listener participation--math lectures for example--are different. I guess the best way I can put it is that speed is inversely proportional to the amount of, I guess let's call it active listening, required.

I've given a lot of thought to this stuff, but we don't really have the right words for me to communicate it properly. A neuroscientist or linguist might, but I'm not either of those.

Re: Human speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second

#170
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the speaker. Some speakers are particularly slow with lots of long pauses and others are faster. I think anyone can get to 3x but it takes some time to adjust to faster and faster speeds. It also depends on what you are doing while listening. Distractions or listening while doing something else (driving for example) lowers my ability to comprehend. For example on the interstate without much traffic I'll…

Overcast has a great feature where it cuts out pauses and otherwise leaves the speed intact. It easily speeds up podcasts by 30% and more

Most decent podcast players also support this.
Post reply on HN