OK i'm on the very first page of this from @dingemansemark and already i know i'm gonna love it. This is exactly what i was thinking about in the context of phonetic perception.

that if the modality isn't assumed to be error free, that communication was always interactive and imperfect, that we would study phonetics in a very different way as well - the haskins lab style psychoacoustic cue model that got imported into systems neuroscience (i think bc compatible with our behavioral methods, but digression) makes very little sense theoretically and empirically.

the capacity for repair in multiple dimensions - across time (asking for repetition) and frequency space (weighting different acoustic cues to accomodate for speaker/environment/etc. variation) - is definitive of spoken language and not captured by reduced synthesized pseudo-speech fragments. Perfect example of how reductionism can go beyond simplifying into inverting a problem.

curious to read more of this paper that starts with 'an inversion of perspective'

https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3530697_2/component/file_3547372/content
from
https://scholar.social/@dingemansemark/111475653592245864