Re: biological evolution of pitch (Eckard Blumschein )


Subject: Re: biological evolution of pitch
From:    Eckard Blumschein  <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE>
Date:    Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:41:27 +0100

Dear Martin, you wrote: >The pitch mechanism that is at work in our heads is much older than our >species. GŁnter Ehret even found it in the mouse: > >http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/Ehret.htm Of course. When I wrote "some kind of inverse transform as do radar and sonar", I meant the same what Ehret called "and then grouped together". I am sure, Geoffrey Manley was also correct when he wrote "I was quite amazed, for example, to note from our SOAE data that the octave distance between interacting SOAE peaks (amplitude correlations) in lizards with tiny papillae and humans are essentially identical." So the most basic principles of hearing are older than mammal peculiarities. >One biological function of f0 pitch is in fact the support of sound >localization. If two or more harmonics of a complex sound (vocalization) can >be unified into one percept, pitch, they must come from one direction and >from one sound source. Wasn't the first function of intelligent hearing to map some coincidence near to the motoric neurons? Insects have their ears near to their wings in order to be able to rapidly dive down in case of danger. Well, male and female midges possibly distinguish each other by frequency. However, this could easily be done by simple resonators. It would not require the FCT - inverse transform mechanism. I would like to stress that the FCT makes full sense only together with its inverse. I imagine pitch a label to location, not vice versa. Kind regards, Eckard


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2003/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University