Subject: Re: Neural mechanisms of octave equivalence From: Jont Allen <jont1@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 17:25:32 -0500 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>I believe that Humans can start to estimate pitch within two periods. This argues more for a time domain processing approach. Harmonic and octave tracking requires a much higher level of signal processing, and the process would take much more time. It also doesnt consider what happens when the pitch is changing, which is sort of the whole point of pitch signal processing. My 2 cents. Jont On 09/24/2016 11:39 AM, Richard F. Lyon wrote: > I agree with Alain, but looked at the paper and have a few more comments: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lauren_Guillette/publication/235376278_Chickadees_fail_standardized_operant_tests_for_octave_equivalence/links/09e4151228c5ace7d7000000.pdf > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_profile_Lauren-5FGuillette_publication_235376278-5FChickadees-5Ffail-5Fstandardized-5Foperant-5Ftests-5Ffor-5Foctave-5Fequivalence_links_09e4151228c5ace7d7000000.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=N7KKV9mcvQqNgAal48W_vzPUNrKl5mBxlJo8xP9z028&m=t2dXZHXZ0AmN3Ztnnc4dLF5MyrdrV4dNx3YD4McSkRM&s=Vse4sA9aUzeNGczL4b3MB75M9mZpTHHshRaO0lYC5tQ&e=> > > Octave equivalence is pretty strong for tones with enough harmonics, > for reasons that Alain describes. This paper shows that humans have > some octave generalization even with pure sine waves, and that the > birds do not. This likely points to different mechanisms. > > For matching based on common frequencies of partials, you need some > partials in common, which is not the case here, due to the signals > being sine waves (no upper partials). For matching based on common > periods, or common peaks in autocorrelation functions, sine waves an > octave apart are close, because the higher one is also periodic at the > period of the lower one. > > So maybe this argues that humans use more period-based matching and > birds use only frequency (cochlear place) matching? Maybe the > experiment should be repeated with tones that have at least a second > harmonic, and see if that leads to birds doing octave generalization > by matching one tone's fundamental to another's second harmonic? This > would be a better way to get at pitch height versus chroma, perhaps. > > Dick > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Alain de Cheveigne > <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx <mailto:alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Hi Ani, > > Octave “equivalence” is an emergent property of both > pattern-matching and autocorrelation models of pitch. All > harmonics of the tone at the octave belong to the harmonic series > of the lower tone. Likewise autocorrelation peaks of the lower > tone coincide with peaks of the tone at the octave. Some neural > instantiations of these models are Shihab Shamma’s harmonic > template model, or Cariani’s work on autocorrelation (based on > Licklider’s ideas), and there are many others. Whether or not any > specific model is supported by anatomical or electrophysiological > data is less clear. > > Actually “equivalence” is a misnomer. The relation is not > commutative: the harmonics of the lower tone do not all belong to > the harmonic series of the octave. Likewise peaks of the > autocorrelation of the octave tone are not all peaks of the lower > tone. Thus these models would predict an asymmetry in the > perceptual similarity between octaves (i.e. an octave tone > “resembles” the lower tone but not vice-versa). I don’t know of > any relevant behavioral data or music-theoretical results on this. > > Alain > > — > de Cheveigné, A. (2005) Pitch perception models. In: Pitch - > Neural coding and perception (Plack C, Oxenham A, eds). New York: > Springer, 169-233. > (http://audition.ens.fr/adc/pdf/2005_pitch_SHAR.pdf > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audition.ens.fr_adc_pdf_2005-5Fpitch-5FSHAR.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=N7KKV9mcvQqNgAal48W_vzPUNrKl5mBxlJo8xP9z028&m=t2dXZHXZ0AmN3Ztnnc4dLF5MyrdrV4dNx3YD4McSkRM&s=5ohmZ_Gd9Gt5BYwriB70qZUz9irJqtzcMM-EJPokfFA&e=>) > Shamma S, and Klein D (2000) The case of the missing pitch > templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory > system. J Acoust Soc Am 107:2631-2644. > Cariani PA, and Delgutte B (1996b) Neural correlates of the pitch > of complex tones. II. Pitch shift, pitch ambiguity, > phase-invariance, pitch circularity, rate-pitch and the dominance > region for pitch. J Neurophysiol 76:1717-1734. > Licklider JCR (1951) A duplex theory of pitch perception > (reproduced in Schubert 1979, 155-160). Experientia 7:128-134. > > > > On 23 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Patel, Aniruddh D. <a.patel@xxxxxxxx > <mailto:a.patel@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > Dear List, > > > > Is anyone aware on theoretical or empirical papers on the neural > mechanisms of octave equivalence in auditory perception? > > > > Interestingly, recent works suggests that songbirds may not > perceive octave equivalence: > > > > Hoeschele, M., Weisman, R. G., Guillette, L. M., Hahn, A. H., & > Sturdy, C. B. (2013). Chickadees fail standardized operant tests > for octave equivalence. Animal cognition, 16(4), 599-609. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ani Patel > > > > Aniruddh D. Patel > > Professor > > Dept. of Psychology > > Tufts University > > 490 Boston Ave. > > Medford, MA 02155 > > > > Senior Fellow > > Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) > > Azrieli Program in Brain, Mind, & Consciousness > > > > a.patel@xxxxxxxx <mailto:a.patel@xxxxxxxx> > > http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/people/patel/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ase.tufts.edu_psychology_people_patel_&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=N7KKV9mcvQqNgAal48W_vzPUNrKl5mBxlJo8xP9z028&m=t2dXZHXZ0AmN3Ztnnc4dLF5MyrdrV4dNx3YD4McSkRM&s=QnjjBsLbb6pUMOZ9EoinEDadADqDf-iSU6dpzQkmPNc&e=> > >