Re: High-frequency hearing in humans (Jose Ignacio Alcantara )


Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans
From:    Jose Ignacio Alcantara  <jia10@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:29:51 +0000
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

--Apple-Mail-2-594211946 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Not wishing to get sidetracked, but given that 'evolutionary (psychology = of hearing)' seems to have been implied as a possible reason for our = high-frequency hearing, I think it's best to be clear about what this = actually means, so that the 'tail doesn't wag the dog'. It does seem = true that our auditory system seems especially well tuned to perceive = speech events, and as such, it is tempting to assume that this is = because both language and audition developed (evolved) together. = Another (equally valid and perhaps more parsimonious) explanation, which = has also been proposed, might be that audition came 'first' and that = language has co-opted the existing system in such a way that it has = taken advantage of whatever auditory processing limits there were/are = (and possible speech production limits as well). The latter explanation = would also explain the observed fine tuning for speech, but crucially, = it would posit that we are good at perceiving those speech sounds that = we happen to be good at discriminating (and producing). =20 In other words, as Kevin suggests, our high-frequency hearing most = certainly came about before Liza Minnelli had cause to expound: "It's Liza with a Z, Not Lisa with an S, 'Cause Lisa with an S Goes = "sss" not "zzz"..." Jose=20 On 2 Feb 2011, at 21:47, Kevin Austin wrote: >=20 > 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". >=20 > In my mind's eye [sic], I see wavelength more so than frequency in = sound transmission / perception. >=20 >=20 > Kevin >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 2011, Feb 2, at 2:14 PM, Piotr Majdak wrote: >=20 >> Dear list, >>=20 >> thank you all for the many responses. Below I try to sort and = summarize the information: >>=20 >> Reasons why extended (>8 kHz) high-frequency hearing may be important = (besides sound localization!) : >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Piotr Majdak wrote: >>>=20 >>> Dear list,=20 >>>=20 >>> I'm looking for the reasons for the good high-frequency* hearing in = humans.=20 >>>=20 >>> The reasons I have until now are actually the obvious ones:=20 >>> * Pinna localization cues=20 >>> * Interaural level cues (ILD, they actually start to work from = around 2 kHz)=20 >>>=20 >>> What do you think: if there were no need for the ILD and pinna cues, = would there be any other reasons?=20 >>>=20 >>> Thanks,=20 >>>=20 >>> Piotr=20 >>> *) say, above 8 kHz=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-2-594211946 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Not = wishing to get sidetracked, but given that 'evolutionary (psychology of = hearing)' seems to have been implied as a possible reason for our = high-frequency hearing, I think it's best to be clear about what this = actually means, so that the 'tail doesn't wag the dog'. &nbsp;It does = seem true that our auditory system seems especially well tuned to = perceive speech events, and as such, it is tempting to assume that this = is because both language and audition developed (evolved) together. = &nbsp;Another (equally valid and perhaps more parsimonious) explanation, = which has also been proposed, might be that audition came 'first' and = that language has co-opted the existing system in such a way that it has = taken advantage of whatever auditory processing limits there were/are = (and possible speech production limits as well). &nbsp;The latter = explanation would also explain the observed fine tuning for speech, but = crucially, it would posit that we are good at perceiving those speech = sounds that we happen to be good at discriminating (and producing). = &nbsp;<div><br></div><div>In other words, as Kevin suggests, our = high-frequency hearing most certainly came about before Liza Minnelli = had cause to expound:</div><div><br></div><div>"It's Liza with a Z, Not = Lisa with an S, 'Cause Lisa with an S Goes "sss" not = "zzz"..."</div><div><br></div><div>Jose&nbsp;<br><div><br></div><div><br><= div><div>On 2 Feb 2011, at 21:47, Kevin Austin wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div = style=3D"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=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote = type=3D"cite"> <div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000"><p style=3D"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 (&gt;8 kHz) high-frequency hearing may be important (besides sound localization!) :</p> <ul> <li><p style=3D"margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br></p></li></ul> <br> <br> Piotr Majdak wrote: <blockquote cite=3D"mid:20110125092815.1DAEA7966@xxxxxxxx" = type=3D"cite">Dear list, <br> <br> I'm looking for the reasons for the good high-frequency* hearing&nbsp; = 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=3D"moz-signature">-- <br> Piotr Majdak<br> Psychoacoustics and Experimental Audiology<br> <a href=3D"http://www.kfs.oeaw.ac.at/">Acoustics Research = Institute</a><br> <a href=3D"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></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-2-594211946--


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