Nevermore?
He means ‘recognisable in an advertising context’, you lot.
The article describes measurable responses to sounds, as follows:
Sounds like extremely dubious “science”, poorly presented in a badly written article. How were these people sampled? What connection do pupilary and other responses have to the conclusion, and why? How was either recognition OR addiction demonstrated? I don’t think we can conclude much at all about those sounds.
This pseudo science of ‘neuromarketing’ is in itself a marketing tool for marketing consultants. Whether or not it leads to increased sales is dependent on a vast array of other factors.
On the article’s author, who surely has more than a few axes to grind…
Ha. The sound of a train in the distance.