Re: human versus spectral resolution ("Beerends, J.G. (John)" )

Subject: Re: human versus spectral resolution
From:    "Beerends, J.G. (John)"  <john.beerends@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:42:53 +0200

Agreed, but now it becomes a philosophical question, and I still agee with Erik, in the end any task that will be defined in a closed context can be better performed by a machine. To reach this goal will only take a few more decades. John Beerends -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Richard F. Lyon Sent: donderdag 3 april 2008 8:14 To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: human versus spectral resolution At 7:49 AM +0200 4/3/08, Beerends, J.G. (John) wrote: >A good theory is never wrong, it only has a limited context in which it >is valid. But a bad theory can be wrong. For example, if one had a theory based on noncoherent detection, saying that in certain experiments a human's time resolution would be limited by the uncertainty principle in relation to the signal bandwidth or frequency resolution, and that theory predicted such limitations in situations where human time resolution is based on fine time structure, rather than on energy envelopes, that would be bad. That why it's important to ask whether humans outperform theory: it can give you a good clue as to whether your theory is not so good. When you're in such a situation, it's very hard to build a machine that will outperform a human, because you don't have a theory that fits how well humans perform. That's one way to look at our difficulty so far to build machines to do a lot of things that human do well, like recognize words, talkers, sound sources, etc. Experiments help you determine whether you're in such a situation or not, even for very much simpler tasks. Dick This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University