Close
today i learned (til)

Yanny or Laurel? The Sound that Divided the Internet

November 28, 2025

 

Yanny or Laurel? The Sound that Divided the Internet

One chaotic week in 2018, the internet was torn apart by one singular audio clip. Two syllables, repeated over and over, sparked worldwide confusion. I was a voice saying “Yanny” or “Laurel”. If you ask me, I heard Yanny on my first listen, but now I can easily switch between the two (unlike the dress mentioned in one of my previous posts). I am here once again to talk about how the same audio can be interpreted differently by ears around the world, the same way one picture of a dress can be interpreted differently by eyes around the world.

In my article about “The Dress,” I related the function of our visual system to a camera. I clarified that the eyes do not record everything like a camera, but use context and past experience to interpret visual cues. Similarly, our ears do not hear everything like a microphone. They interpret input based on frequencies and expectations, which can also change as we age.

Hearing isn’t always believing.

Sound waves are interpreted by entering the eardrum, travelling to the inner are, and activating hair cells. The auditory cortex in your brain constructs what you hear based on the activation patterns of your hair cells, past experiences, and the sensitivity of your ears, all of which can differ from each individual (Moore 2012).

When people hear different words in the audio clip, it is caused by the brain forming different perceptions of the same signal, not personal preference.

The Science Behind It

The audio clip contains a mixture of frequencies. When analyzed, it was found that there were frequencies at both the low range (400-500 Hz) and high range (2500-300 Hz) in the audio clip (Rosen 2018). People who hear “Laurel” tend to emphasize lower frequencies, while people who hear “Yanny” tend to emphasize high frequencies (Rosen 2018). This is similar to “The Dress,” where people who saw each color set had a different preference for color undertones.

Presbycusis is a phenomenon that causes people to lose sensitivity to upper ranges of audio frequency as they age, causing a physical variation in how people hear (Gates et. al., 2006). Since “Yanny” is encoded in high-frequency sounds, it is more likely for it to be heard by younger people (like me!).

Surveys have shown that it was more likely for older adults to hear “Laurel” due to its lower frequencies. These frequencies are more stable throughout one’s lifespan.

Why does the brain choose one word over the other?

Top-down processing is when the brain uses existing knowledge and experience to interpret sensory information, instead of letting the sensory information motivate the interpretation. This type of processing is important for interpreting ambiguous sounds such as this one (Hickok & Poeppel, 2007). If your brain is used to certain vowels or speech patterns, you may hear a specific word. For example, more American English speakers heard “Laurel” because the low-frequency format is common in American English, while listeners who spoke a language with a higher-frequency format were more likely to hear ‘Yanny’ (Samuel, 2011).

What does this reveal?

Our brain does not perceive all the senses the same way as everyone else! Hearing sounds that are ambiguous forces our brain to guess, and not all brains guess the same way.

References

Gates, G. A., & Mills, J. H. (2005). Presbycusis. The Lancet, 366(9491), 1111–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67423-5

Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113

Moore, B. C. J. (2012). An introduction to the psychology of hearing (6th ed.). Brill.

Rosen, J. (2018). The science behind Yanny vs. Laurel: Why we hear what we hear. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5052025

Samuel, A. G. (2011). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131643

 

 

0Likes
About Author

Hi, my name is Deepika and I'm a third-year Neuroscience student at Georgia Tech. After undergrad, I hope to do my PhD in neuroscience as well because I love everything about the brain!

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
A Look Back At How America’s Covid Response Failed
Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
How well do you understand physics?
today i learned (til)
A Future of Painless Tattoos
today i learned (til)
The Flower Power Behind Gene Silencing

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.