[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CBW, phase deafness, etc.

Dear Peter Cariani and List,

Do we live up to our responsibility? I remember of the reason why a
physician committed an incredible crime. He performed deadly experiments
with children just because he intended to become a professor. Even more
tragically, the girls and boys were sacrificed for nothing. The
unscrupulous experiments were based on wrong assumptions. Nonetheless, the
doctor falsified his identity and managed getting recognized for a while.
Cats are quite different from humans. However, I am not sure whether or not
I myself might sometimes be to blame for carelessness that could cost
further lives of animals. 

In particular, I asked for more data concerning "block-voting".
Fortunately, Peter Cariani outed himself. I have to apologize not just for
not mentioning him but also for late understanding the data by Miller and
Sachs, and, of course, the similar ones by Delgutte et al., too. Maybe, I
am just not aware of awareness of others concerning some consequences of
two peculiarities. My first suspicion has proven correct. The figures by
Secker-Walker and Searle or by Shamma are somewhat misleading since they
are based on many repetitions but possibly suggest a snapshot. My second
suspicion is, phase of fundamental might have varied each time. In
principle, it would be possible to check this by means of a synchronized
stimulus. Referring to my initial remark, I would not consider this

I see a lot of consequences. CBW or more naturally speaking the width of
neural tuning curves depends on variance of phase and approximately amounts
half a period (i.e. 1/2CF) for periods below refractory time, even if
frequency resolution at inner hair cells (notice, I am avoiding the term
basilar membrane) might be much higher. Deafness against phase also becomes
understandable, etc. 

Finally for this time, I would like to briefly take issue against
application of autocorrelation function. I know, this easy tool was favored
not just by Peter Cariani. Possibly we both can agree. I realized him
writing autocorrelation-like representations and operations. What about me,
I go along with Kaernbach/Demany who provided psychoacoustical evidence
against autocorrelation theories in JASA (1999), more strictly speaking
against perception of all-order inter click interval (ICI). Please forgive
me my heretical mistrust in general suitability of any available
mathematical tool in case of hearing. Since Müller (1838), I see all
efforts doomed to failure, so far. Instead, I imagine the neurons to
preferably detect coincidence of lowest order. For instance, a first order
ICI dominates over any second or higher order ICI. A key to many keys might
hopefully be my suggestion that tonal perception is based on zero order
ICIs. I uttered this idea for the first time this year in Oldenburg after I
got aware that atonal perception across all CFs starts to become gradually
amenable as soon as period exceeds refractory time. In that case, the
normally dominating zero order tonotopic intervals are presumably getting
increasingly corrupted. 

Eckard Blumschein