Re: High-frequency hearing in humans

[amit rajora <amitrajora@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Data from Fay and Warfield given below may be enlightening. However, chicken seems to be a notable exception.


Species 	Approximate Range (Hz) 
human 	        64-23,000
dog 	        67-45,000 
cat 	        45-64,000 
cow 	        23-35,000 
horse 	        55-33,500 
sheep 	        100-30,000 
rabbit 	        360-42,000 
rat 	        200-76,000 
mouse 	        1,000-91,000 
gerbil 	        100-60,000 
guinea pig 	54-50,000 
hedgehog 	250-45,000 
raccoon 	100-40,000
ferret 	        16-44,000 
opossum 	500-64,000 
chinchilla 	90-22,800 
bat 	        2,000-110,000 
beluga whale 	1,000-123,000
elephant 	16-12,000 
porpoise 	75-150,000
goldfish 	20-3,000 
catfish  	50-4,000 
tuna  	        50-1,100 
bullfrog  	100-3,000 
tree frog 	50-4,000 
canary  	250-8,000 
parakeet  	200-8,500 
cockatiel 	250-8,000 
owl  	        200-12,000 
chicken  	125-2,000


Regards

Amit

 

--- On Wed, 1/26/11, Antonio Miller <antonio.miller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Antonio Miller <antonio.miller@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans
> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:28 PM
> We'll see if someone tears this
> argument apart, but you got me thinking...
> 
> The propagation of sound in the atmosphere is pretty
> complicated [1],
> but some simplified calculations might be relevant to this
> question.
> 
> Attenuation of sound in Air at 100m [2]:
> f<2kHz, less than 2dB
> f=4kHz, 3dB
> f=8kHz, 10dB
> f=16kHz, 36dB
> 
> A (very rough) calculation for a detection radius of a
> sound that is
> 20dB above hearing threshold:
> 
> 56m for 16kHz
> 200m for 8kHz
> 667m for 4kHz
> 
> Meaning, you would have to be almost four times closer to
> the 16kHz
> sound to detect it as the 8kHz sound.  Assuming the 8
> and 16kHz sound
> are equally biologically relevant, I would tend to weight
> the
> information content of the 16kHz sound much higher due to
> it's
> relative spatial scarcity.  Does that make sense to
> anyone?  Maybe the
> ability to hear higher frequency sounds helps lend a
> competitive
> advantage because they only exist within short distances of
> the sound
> source?
> 
> -Tony
> 
> [1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Engineering_Acoustics/Outdoor_Sound_Propagation#endnote_HandbookofAcoustics1998
> [2] Air @ 1 atm, 20deg C, 50% relative humidity.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Piotr Majdak <piotr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > I'm looking for the reasons for the good
> high-frequency* hearing  in humans.
> >
> > The reasons I have until now are actually the obvious
> ones:
> > * Pinna localization cues
> > * Interaural level cues (ILD, they actually start to
> work from around 2 kHz)
> >
> > What do you think: if there were no need for the ILD
> and pinna cues, would
> > there be any other reasons?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Piotr
> > *) say, above 8 kHz
> >
> > --
> > Piotr Majdak
> > Psychoacoustics and Experimental Audiology
> > Acoustics Research Institute <http://www.kfs.oeaw.ac.at>
> > Austrian Academy of Sciences <http://www.oeaw.ac.at/>
> > Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040 Vienna, Austria
> > Tel.: +43 1 51581-2511
> > Fax: +43 1 51581-2530
> >
>