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

*To*: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility*From*: John Hershey <jhershey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:20:20 -0800*Delivery-date*: Thu Jan 22 19:32:01 2004*References*: <3.0.5.32.20040122130645.00c52550@dfnserv1.urz.uni-magdeburg.de>*Reply-to*: John Hershey <jhershey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Sender*: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Are you really sure that hearing can always be completely understood by > means of linear treatment of an arbitrarily chosen section of time? Do you I was just trying to clarify what assumptions lead to the statements being made. However I think this statistical analysis is probably misleading, as is the interpretation in terms of the Fourier transform. It's not as if the auditory system would have to measure higher-order statistics of the signal as such over time-- one signal would just sound different from another because it would have a different spectrum at any given time, even if the means, or some other statistics of the spectrum, are the same for both signals. Likewise with respect to the Fourier transform -- one has to specify at least a window size to get meaningful hints about hearing. On the other hand, thinking about it statistically is useful for forming intuitions about signals. I otherwise wouldn't have thought about the fact that non-Gaussian i.i.d. noise can introduce higher-order statistical dependencies in the Fourier transform, even though the spectrum is the same.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility***From:*Israel Nelken

**References**:**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility***From:*Eckard Blumschein

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Next by Date:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Next by thread:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Index(es):