Re: perceptual evaluation of cochlear models (Joachim Thiemann )


Subject: Re: perceptual evaluation of cochlear models
From:    Joachim Thiemann  <joachim.thiemann@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:12:08 +0200
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

Hello Francesco, McGill alumni here - I did a bit of study in this direction, you can read about it in my thesis: http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/MMSP/Theses/T2011-2013.html#Thiemann My argument was that if you have a good auditory model, you should be able to start from only the model parameters and be able to reconstruct the original signal with perceptual transparency. I was looking at this in the context of perceptual coding - a perceptual coder minus the entropy stage effectively verifies the model. If artefacts do appear, they can (indirectly) tell you what you are missing. I was specifically looking at gammatone filterbank methods, so there is no comparison to other schemas - but I hope it is a bit in the direction you're looking at. Cheers, Joachim. On 2 September 2014 20:39, ftordini@xxxxxxxx <ftordini@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear List members, > I am looking for references on perceptual evaluation of cochlear models - > taken form an analysis-synthesis point of view, alike the work introduced in > Homann_2002 (Frequency analysis and synthesis using a Gammatone filterbank, > ยง4.3). > > Are you aware of any study that tried to assess the performance of > gammatone-like filterbanks used as a synthesis model? (AKA, what are the > advantages over MPEG-like schemas?) > > All the best, > Francesco > > http://www.cim.mcgill.ca/sre/personnel/ > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/ftordini > > -- Joachim Thiemann :: http://jthiem.bitbucket.org :: http://signalsprocessed.blogspot.com


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2014/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University