Subject: Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation. From: "Richard F. Lyon" <DickLyon@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:33:49 -0800 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>At 8:15 AM +0100 2/26/07, Eckard.Blumschein@xxxxxxxx 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 harmonics." 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 >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. Dick