Subject: Re: Pitch in a non-animate world From: Brian Gygi <bgygi(at)EBIRE.ORG> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:48:57 -0800Al's and Christian's observations are strongly in agreement with data I have on similarity ratings of environmental sounds which indicate strongly that our major partitioning of sounds in the world is between pitched and non-pitched sounds. Pitched sounds included not just animal vocalizations but also human-generated communicative sounds such as whistles and sirens. Indeed, the salience of pitched sounds for communicative purposes may lie in their ability to perceived above a largely non-harmonic background. At 02:00 PM 3/2/2005, Al Bregman wrote: >Dear Christian and list, > >I completely agree with you. Like you, I have noticed the fact that in the >natural environment in which our ancestors evolved (no machines or other >human artifacts), almost all periodic sounds are from animals. The >exception might be wind whistling through tree branches, or the examples >you cited. > >I also agree with you that it is likely that many of the behaviors that >produce such sounds co-evolved with communication and served that function >from early on -- I am thinking, for example, of the mating calls of >crickets. Of course, this evolution for sonic communication went along >with the evolution of visual communication (e.g., the color patterns in >squids, or the mating displays of birds and possibly of earlier dinosaurs, >or the displays of mammals such as the size of the antlers of deer), >chemical communication (insects, scents of mammals in heat), and tactile >communication (e.g., in the communication between a mammalian mother and >her nursing infants). > >Auditory communication has a number of advantages over these other forms. >As opposed to visual communication, it passes around interposed objects, >such as trees or rocks, retaining most of the important information >(except, sometimes, for place of origin). At low frequencies, such as >those used by elephants, it can be heard very far away. As opposed to >tactile communication, it works even when the animals aren't in proximity. >As opposed to chemical communication carried by scent, it is capable of >forming rapidly changing temporal patterns. These unique capabilities of >sound have probably affected the way in which its use has evolved. > >The advantage of the use of pitch in communication is the very fact that it >is not likely to have arisen accidentally from non-communicative events; so >a pitch implies a communicative event -- not necessarily one involving your >own species. So recognition processes would have to sort them out. Of >course, for any animal of even modest intelligence, the recognition that >another species (predator or prey) is communicating close to you can also >have vital significance. > >Regards, > >Al > >--------------------------------------------- >Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor >Psychology Dept., McGill University >1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue >Montreal, Quebec >Canada H3A 1B1 > >Office: > Voice: +1 (514) 398-6103 > Fax: +1 (514) 398-4896 >--------------------------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christian Kaernbach" <auditory(at)KAERNBACH.DE> >To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:08 PM >Subject: Pitch in a non-animate world > > > > Dear List, > > > > It recently came to my mind that nearly all experiences of pitch are > > related to animal communication soounds. Sure, there is something like > > edge pitch of broadband stimuli, maybe even echo pitch under specific > > conditions, but clearly periodic sounds stemming from a periodically > > moving source would nearly always come from an animal (and most often be > > communication sounds... exception: humming of bees etc.). Is this a > > complete nonsense? Or could it be that pitch processing evolved in > > parallel to communication capabilities? > > > > Best, > > Christian Kaernbach > > > >