Pitch perception codes operate in parallel and can compensate for each other’s loss

Evidence

The results of the simulation plotted in Fig. 2 evidence that, as in Santurette and Dau ( 2011 ), the predicted pitch values are always related to TE × TSFperiod and never related to TEperiod . This is strongly consistent with the results reported by the authors. The results of the simulation plotted in Fig. 3 are strongly consistent with Oxenham et al. ( 2011 ). Using a plausible refractory period of 2500 Hz, the simulation is able to extract the TE × TSFperiod even if the TSFperiod are too fast to be correctly encoded. The decrease in performances reported in Oxenham et al. ( 2011 ) when increasing the F0 from 1200 Hz to up to 2000 Hz is also simulated. This decrease is probably explained by a decrease in resolvability (less and less interactions between harmonic components) when increasing the F0. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4638 (#expands, via linked claim)

Listen carefully for the presence of a 200 Hz sinusoidal partial with only partials 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, and 1400 present. You won’t hear a 200 Hz partial at low sound intensities, yet a 200 Hz pitch will prevail. The 200 Hz partial is not there in the original sound, nor is it created for us by any part of the hearing system from the outer ear to the auditory cortex. What is created by that system is the sensation we call pitch. Pitch is not partial. — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2031 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Pitch may be jointly coded by temporal patterns and their cochlear location — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1338; Pitch can be perceived even when no partial exists at that frequency — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2031; Pitch perception is encoded by the timing of neural firing in the cochlea — Ville Pulkki, Matti Karjalainen, Communication Acoustics- An…, 1655 (+2 more)

Broader Connections