Subject: Re: Difference between cognition and perception? From: Eric Scheirer <eds(at)MEDIA.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:17:14 -0400Dear Eliot and list, > As I've already suggested, the perception of ANY kind of temporal > relation must involve memory and comparison. Among the simplest is the > detection of pulse or meter. No necessary cognition? no sense of > pulse. > > Are you suggesting that sense of pulse is also not needed to enjoy > metered music? > Or that pulse detection isn't cognitive? I think it is definitely not obvious that pulse detection is cognitive. And in particular, the statement that "the perception of any temporal relation must involve memory" I think is not true. For example, pitch is a temporal phenomenon, as it is the perceptual correlate of frequency, which depends in an essential manner on temporal aspects of sound. If you wish to argue that the perception of pitch is at its center a cognitive phenomenon, then I think we differ greatly on the meanings of "cognition" and "perception." It is quite possible to construct a model [1] in which no cognitive interrelationships between "events" or "notes" is necessary to explain pulse perception. Such a model hypothesizes that pulse is a very close-to-the-surface perceptual phenomemon that stems from simple filterbanks and resonating loops. In fact, existing temporal models of pitch perception work quite well to explain pulse perception if they are simply "slowed down" [2]. Best, -- Eric [1] Scheirer, Eric D. (1998). Tempo and Beat Analysis of Acoustic Musical Signals J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103:1 (Jan 1998), pp 588-601. [2] Scheirer, Eric D. (1997) Pulse Tracking with a Pitch Tracker. Proc. 1997 Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, Mohonk, NY, Oct 1997. ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia(at)alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eliot Handelman" <eliot(at)GENERATION.NET> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Difference between cognition and perception? > Martin Braun wrote: > > >As I had written, "cognition is not needed". It can occur, of course. > > > > > > Dear Martin, > > As I've already suggested, the perception of ANY kind of temporal > relation must involve memory and comparison. Among the simplest is the > detection of pulse or meter. No necessary cognition? no sense of > pulse. > > Are you suggesting that sense of pulse is also not needed to enjoy > metered music? > Or that pulse detection isn't cognitive? > > You may be using the word "cognition" here to mean what's usually > called "music appreciation" -- being able to say things like "that > piece is in ABA form," or something similar. I agree that no one NEEDS > to know this kind of detail in order to enjoy music. Indeed students > taking music appreciation courses, who must be examined on this sort > of lifeless grind, often feel that it detracts from the emotion and > mystery that they otherwise experience in music. But this doesn't mean > that there's no information-processing taking place, though > potentially at a very fine-grained level. > > > -- eliot