Re: High-frequency hearing in humans (amit rajora )


Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans
From:    amit rajora  <amitrajora@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:04:25 -0800
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

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@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Antonio Miller <antonio.miller@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > 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 @xxxxxxxx 1 atm, 20deg C, 50% relative humidity. > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Piotr Majdak <piotr@xxxxxxxx> > 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 > > >


This message came from the mail archive
/home/empire6/dpwe/public_html/postings/2011/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University