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

*To*: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.*From*: "Richard F. Lyon" <DickLyon@xxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:33:49 -0800*Comments*: To: Eckard.Blumschein@E-Technik.Uni-Magdeburg.DE*Delivery-date*: Tue Feb 27 16:00:40 2007*In-reply-to*: <1172474117.45e28905b3fa2@webmail.uni-magdeburg.de>*List-archive*: <http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>*List-help*: <http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.MCGILL.CA?body=INFO AUDITORY>*List-owner*: <mailto:AUDITORY-request@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>*List-subscribe*: <mailto:AUDITORY-subscribe-request@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>*List-unsubscribe*: <mailto:AUDITORY-unsubscribe-request@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>*References*: <20070131171152.74585.qmail@web26301.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <2a17c00a0701311310i538f446ana9c8532934e57529@mail.gmail.com> <2728.209.251.130.178.1170460061.squirrel@webmail.cise.ufl.edu> <p06230900c206338eee40@[192.168.23.150]> <1172474117.45e28905b3fa2@webmail.uni-magdeburg.de>*Reply-to*: "Richard F. Lyon" <DickLyon@xxxxxxx>*Sender*: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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 harmonics."

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 estimatedusing 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 octave unison

are quite natural phonomena. We need not look for their 'learned' basis.

Here I have no idea what you think you're responding to.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Eckard Blumschein

**References**:**Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Roisin Loughran

**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Yi-Wen Liu

**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Arturo Camacho

**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Richard F. Lyon

**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.***From:*Eckard Blumschein

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.** - Next by Date:
**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.** - Next by thread:
**Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation.** - Index(es):