Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans From: Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:47:30 -0500 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--Boundary_(ID_X35jIQrND99/wdeovAtdOg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Perhaps the question could be reframed as, "What are the evolutionary advantages of perceiving wavelengths of 1.5 to 4 cm, over not perceiving these wavelengths?" I would imagine that the upper limit of human hearing was developed well in advance of having to distinguish "zoo" from "sue". In my mind's eye [sic], I see wavelength more so than frequency in sound transmission / perception. Kevin On 2011, Feb 2, at 2:14 PM, Piotr Majdak wrote: > Dear list, > > thank you all for the many responses. Below I try to sort and summarize the information: > > Reasons why extended (>8 kHz) high-frequency hearing may be important (besides sound localization!) : > > > > > Piotr Majdak 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 > Austrian Academy of Sciences > Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040 Vienna, Austria > Tel.: +43 1 51581-2511 > Fax: +43 1 51581-2530 --Boundary_(ID_X35jIQrND99/wdeovAtdOg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT <html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Perhaps the question could be reframed as, "What are the evolutionary advantages of perceiving wavelengths of 1.5 to 4 cm, over not perceiving these wavelengths?" I would imagine that the upper limit of human hearing was developed well in advance of having to distinguish "zoo" from "sue".</div><div><br></div><div>In my mind's eye [sic], I see wavelength more so than frequency in sound transmission / perception.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 2011, Feb 2, at 2:14 PM, Piotr Majdak wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm;">Dear list,<br> <br> thank you all for the many responses. Below I try to sort and summarize the information:<br> <br> Reasons why extended (>8 kHz) high-frequency hearing may be important (besides sound localization!) :</p> <ul> <li><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br></p></li></ul> <br> <br> Piotr Majdak wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:20110125092815.1DAEA7966@xxxxxxxx" type="cite">Dear list, <br> <br> I'm looking for the reasons for the good high-frequency* hearing in humans. <br> <br> The reasons I have until now are actually the obvious ones: <br> * Pinna localization cues <br> * Interaural level cues (ILD, they actually start to work from around 2 kHz) <br> <br> What do you think: if there were no need for the ILD and pinna cues, would there be any other reasons? <br> <br> Thanks, <br> <br> Piotr <br> *) say, above 8 kHz <br> <br> </blockquote> <br> <br> <div class="moz-signature">-- <br> Piotr Majdak<br> Psychoacoustics and Experimental Audiology<br> <a href="http://www.kfs.oeaw.ac.at/">Acoustics Research Institute</a><br> <a href="http://www.oeaw.ac.at/">Austrian Academy of Sciences</a><br> Wohllebengasse 12-14, 1040 Vienna, Austria<br> Tel.: +43 1 51581-2511<br> Fax: +43 1 51581-2530</div> </div> </blockquote></div><br></body></html> --Boundary_(ID_X35jIQrND99/wdeovAtdOg)--