Subject: CBW, phase deafness, etc. From: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:01:13 +0200Dear 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.=20 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 necessary.=20 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.=20 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 M=FCller (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.=20 Sincerely,=20 Eckard Blumschein