3 ms·

Wow that's a fascinating possible explanation

klipt 8y ago
Unlikely true though, you don't analyze pitches using an internal clock, rather you cochlea acts like an analog fourier transform.
- retsibsi 8y ago
  > you don't analyze pitches using an internal clock, rather you cochlea acts like an analog fourier transform. I'm out of my depth here, but wouldn't that process still require some kind of 'clock' (albeit not necessarily the one used for conscious time perception) in order to resolve the signal into absolute, rather than relative, frequencies?
  - dTal 8y ago
    Nope - the transform is analog. You have a tube, and the sound propagates down the tube; higher frequencies get absorbed first, while lower frequencies make it further. The tube is lined with little hairs that just sense amplitude; each hair thus measures the amplitude of the signal convolved by the frequency response of that spot in the tube (actually pulling a pure tone out of that is a remarkable feat of signal processing as there is huge overlap). So no clock is required - an absolute frequency turns into an absolute pattern of nerve stimulus.
    - gugagore 8y ago
      If I may emphasize your point, the frequency reference doesn't come from a neurological time-keeping mechanism. Instead it comes from physical resonance. So it is definitely still a "clock". It's like having many pendulum clocks in your ear. However it is unlikely that whatever you use to count by seconds has to do with the little pendulums (pendula) in your ear.
  - gugagore 8y ago
    It does require a kind of clock, in my opinion. I responded to a sibling comment with my thoughts.
- gugagore 8y ago
  Note that you're putting forth "the place theory of hearing perception". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_theory_(hearing) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_theory_(hearing) There are links other possible theories on that page, namely the temporal theory, which does propose we rely on neuronal clocks. It seems likely to me that both theories play a role in pitch perception.

Unlikely true though, you don't analyze pitches using an internal clock, rather you cochlea acts like an analog fourier transform.

retsibsi 8y ago
> you don't analyze pitches using an internal clock, rather you cochlea acts like an analog fourier transform. I'm out of my depth here, but wouldn't that process still require some kind of 'clock' (albeit not necessarily the one used for conscious time perception) in order to resolve the signal into absolute, rather than relative, frequencies?
- dTal 8y ago
  Nope - the transform is analog. You have a tube, and the sound propagates down the tube; higher frequencies get absorbed first, while lower frequencies make it further. The tube is lined with little hairs that just sense amplitude; each hair thus measures the amplitude of the signal convolved by the frequency response of that spot in the tube (actually pulling a pure tone out of that is a remarkable feat of signal processing as there is huge overlap). So no clock is required - an absolute frequency turns into an absolute pattern of nerve stimulus.
  - gugagore 8y ago
    If I may emphasize your point, the frequency reference doesn't come from a neurological time-keeping mechanism. Instead it comes from physical resonance. So it is definitely still a "clock". It's like having many pendulum clocks in your ear. However it is unlikely that whatever you use to count by seconds has to do with the little pendulums (pendula) in your ear.
- gugagore 8y ago
  It does require a kind of clock, in my opinion. I responded to a sibling comment with my thoughts.
gugagore 8y ago
Note that you're putting forth "the place theory of hearing perception". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_theory_(hearing) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_theory_(hearing) There are links other possible theories on that page, namely the temporal theory, which does propose we rely on neuronal clocks. It seems likely to me that both theories play a role in pitch perception.