[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.
At 8:15 AM +0100 2/26/07, Eckard.Blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Kaernbach and D. provided psychophysical evidence against these models.
I assume you mean C. Kaernbach and L. Demany: "Psychophysical
evidence against the autocorrelation theory of auditory temporal
processing". Their result based on frequencies above 6 kHz with
lower frequencies full of masking noise has been considerably
tempered by Kaernbach's later paper: C. Kaernbach and C. Bering,
"Exploring the temporal mechanism involved in the pitch of unresolved
But I had no intention of bringing up the subject of which model is
more plausible psychophysically or physiologically, as my biases
there, and yours, would only lead to squabbles.
You are quite right in that purely frequency based models cannot
account for all audible features of sound.
I didn't make such a point, but I believe you're right. I just
wondered if they had compared to other classes of models.
> Your poster says that the spectra were estimated
using FFT, and the next sentence says using a
gammatone filterbank. Which is it? Or both?
Oh, I see, one says the algorithm and the other
the model. Why would you choose an algorithm
that doesn't match the model? Why treat these as
conceptually different things? An algorithm is a
computational model, is it not?
While I support this caveat, I do not expect a simple mathematical solution at
all, because the multipolars within CN do not synchronously respond to the
frequency which stimulated the IHCs. Neurons are generally too slow as to
directly convey all audible frequencies. Chopper frequencies in the kHz range
are impossible due to refractory time. So auditory nerve and cochlear nucleus
perform something like downsampling. So harmony and in particular
are quite natural phonomena. We need not look for their 'learned' basis.
Here I have no idea what you think you're responding to.