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

Re: purely spectral pitch

Hi Karin,

Thanks for your in depth reply!
I am on my way to Neurosciences, but will read the rest of your explanation
 and digest it, and try to respond when I return (about 10 days).

The issue of the Huggins and MPD pitches being temporal is not a
matter of the inputs to cross-correlators, but whether the outputs
of the binaural cross-correlators are time structured. This is what
I was trying to convey, that there could still be a temporal analysis
after the cross-correlation process (a la Licklider's triplex and Cherry's
auto- and cross-correlation models). I presume that the temporal
integration windows for integration of binaural information have
do with buildup of auditory images in higher stations (but I will
ponder your explanation).

If the cross-correlation process preserves the time structure of the
coincidences, then there can be temporal interactions of frequency
components that are presented to different ears. These interactions
would occur in the auditory CNS rather than in cochleas.

Take care,
Peter Cariani

Katrin Krumbholz wrote:
> Dear Peter,
> I think, I have to defend John's position a bit:
> Let me start off be explaining Roy and my experiments in more detail.
> Our study on pitch perception in binaural listening conditions was
> devided into two parts. The first part deals with dichotic pitches,
> namely Huggins pitch and its complex relative, Multiple-Phase-Shift
> (MPS) pitch. As you know, a MPS pitch can generated by introducing
> narrow phase transitions at harmonic frequencies in an otherwise diotic
> noise. The auditory nerve responses to a spectrally unresolved harmonic
> complex tone still mediate information about the repetition rate of the
> stimulus: when harmonics merge within the cochlear filters, they interfere
> and produce a temporal modulation (beating) at the output of the filters.
> This is not the case in a spectrally unresolved MPS stimulus (phase
> transitions merged within cochlear filters), because the signals at the
> two ears are just noises, so there is no beating between harmonics.
> Thus, even if dichotic and monaural pitches would be processed with
> different contiguity or integration windows, there would be no temporal
> information to process in a spectrally unresolved MPS stimulus!
> We measured the lower limit of pitch (LLP) for MPS stimuli and found
> that the pitch limit is about 65 Hz, which (as expected) approximately
> corresponds to Shackleton and Carlyon's (1994) estimate of the limit of
> spectral resolution in the relevant frequency region (between about
> 200 and 1200 Hz). For a comparison, we also measured the LLP for homo-
> and antiphasic (S0 and Spi) harmonic tones in a diotic noise masker.
> The loudness of the harmonic tones was matched to the loudness of the
> MPS pitch. The LLP for the homophasic harmonic tones was about 35 Hz,
> i. e. well below the limit of spectral resolution. In contrast, the LLP
> for antiphasic harmonic tones was essentially equal to the LLP for MPS
> stimuli. This finding is a bit astonishing, because the antiphasic
> tones should produce temporal modulation of the cochlear filter resonses
> when harmonics are unresoved (i. e. below about 65 Hz in our frequency
> region), and this modulation information should theoretically be
> interpretable by a temporal pitch mechanism. Due to the low SNR
> of the antiphasic tones, the temporal modulation would be burried
> under a lot of noise but there should be no reason why the temporal
> information shouldn't be recovered by binaural unmasking. Or should there?
> Yes, namely binaural sluggishness. In the second part of our study we
> measured the temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF) for
> homophasic and antiphase bandpass noise (filtered to the frequency
> region of interest, namely between 200 and 1200 Hz) in a diotic noise
> masker. The sensation level of the antiphasic noise was about 12 dB
> and the sensation level of the homophasic noise was set so that the
> modulation detection threshold at low modulation rates would be roughly
> equal in both interaural phase conditions. The result was that the TMTF
> for the antiphasic noise had a much lower 3-dB down cutoff rate than
> the TMTF for the homophasic noise, and in the antiphasic noise, modulation
> was completely inaudible at rates above 30 Hz, which would be relevant
> for pitch perception.
> Thus, the reason for the similar LLP for MPS stimuli
> and for antiphasic harmonic tones is that the temporal modultion in
> the cochlear filter resonses to a spectrally unresolved antiphasic
> harmonic tones is NOT recovered by binaural unmasking, becuase
> binaural processing is too slow. Now, if the binaural system is too
> slow to follow the envelope modulations in the cochlear filter resonses
> to unresolved harmonic tones, it is probably even more too slow to follow
> the temporal fine structure in cochlear filter responses to spectrally
> resolved harmonics. At least with the current concepts of binaural
> sluggishness in mind (temporal integration window with duration of the
> order of 100 ms), there is no reason to believe that envelope and
> fine-structure temporal information should be treated differently by
> the binaurla system.
> So under the assumption (and I concede that this is an assumtion)
> that fine-structure and envelope are both temporally smeared to
> the same extent, the conclusion would be that dichotic pitches and
> the pitch of binaurally unmasked harmonic (or pure) tones are PURELY
> spectral pitches.
> Finally just one short remark on your comments about frequency
> selectivity and the distinction between physiological and
> phsychophysical data: Ted Evans has produced a lot of quite
> compelling evidence that the frequency selectivity of the
> mammalian auditory system, as measured in phsychophysics, is
> already established at the level of the cochlear!
> Best regards,
>    Katrin Krumbholz