Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle
Apr 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 8

complin

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Posts
1,081
Likes
61

Each dot represents a subject’s performance on Task 5 (simultaneously measuring the duration and frequency of a sound), with temporal acuity on the x-axis and frequency acuity on the y-axis. All dots within the black rectangle beat the Fourier uncertainty principle. Credit: Oppenheim and Magnasco ©2013 American Physical Society
 
(Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound's frequency (related to a note's pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance.
 
 
The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound. Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound.
To investigate human hearing in this context, the researchers turned to psychophysics, an area of study that uses various techniques to reveal how physical stimuli affect human sensation. Using physics, these techniques can establish tight bounds on the performance of the senses. An ear for precision To test how precisely humans can simultaneously measure the duration and frequency of a sound, the researchers asked 12 subjects to perform a series of listening tasks leading up to a final task. In the final task, the subjects were asked to discriminate simultaneously whether a test note was higher or lower in frequency than a leading note that was played before it, and whether the test note appeared before or after a third note, which was discernible due to its much higher frequency. When a subject correctly discriminated the frequency and timing of a note twice in a row, the difficulty level would increase so that both the difference in frequency between the notes and the time between the notes decreased. When a subject responded incorrectly, the variance would increase to make the task easier.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html#jCp

 
Apr 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM Post #2 of 8
So what do you conclude from this paper?
 
Btw:
Quote:
The Fourier uncertainty principle doesn't set a limit on how accurately, say, the centre of a gaussian wavepacket, and the central frequency of a wavepacket, can be simultaneously be determined. There's no theorem in mathematics that says this is so and this experiment clearly demonstrates there is no such limit. So the title is a bit misleading.

 
Apr 3, 2013 at 4:44 AM Post #3 of 8
Well, for example this quote in the text for instance (I have not yet obtained and read the whole paper and explanation, but this caught my eye immediately 
wink_face.gif



Quote: "We were still extremely surprised by how well our subjects did, and particularly surprised by the fact that the biggest gains appear to have been, by and large, in timing. You see, physicists tend to think hearing is spectrum. But spectrum is time-independent, and hearing is about rapid transients. We were just told, by the data, that our brains care a great deal about timing."


Quote:
So what do you conclude from this paper?
 
Btw:

 
Apr 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM Post #4 of 8
I don't understand the surprise. We know since the 50s/60s that human hearing can detect interaural timing differences of about 10 - 20 us. In the past there were also studies done on the detection of temporal displacement of tones with the result that the average noticeable difference is about 10 ms.
 
Most dots in the graph above are over 10 ms.
 
I also do not see how a spectrum is time-independent. A spectrum usually consists of both magnitude and phase information.
 
Apr 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM Post #5 of 8
Quote:
I don't understand the surprise. We know since the 50s/60s that human hearing can detect interaural timing differences of about 10 - 20 us. In the past there were also studies done on the detection of temporal displacement of tones with the result that the average noticeable difference is about 10 ms.
 
Most dots in the graph above are over 10 ms.
 
I also do not see how a spectrum is time-independent. A spectrum usually consists of both magnitude and phase information.

Are they referring to the fact that an FFTs spectral resolution depends on size/number of samples and therefore time dependent? 
 
Apr 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM Post #6 of 8
Apr 3, 2013 at 2:47 PM Post #7 of 8
Quote:
I don't understand what they're saying with time-independence.
 
Regarding FFT/DFT: The DFT is an invertible, linear transformation. Any ever so tiny change in the input data (even if it's just a tiny phase shift) will show up in the spectrum, else it wouldn't be invertible.
Also see: http://www.head-fi.org/t/653061/turning-it-around-fft-beats-human-hearing-ez

Yes, I see what you're saying.  I thought it was just that fewer FFT points takes less time, but results in lower resolution.  Perhaps what they're saying isn't that simple.  Seems like they had trained listeners too...sort of a cheat.  The study got beat up a little over had hydrogenaudio.  Worth a look, easily googled. 
 
Apr 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM Post #8 of 8
Yeah because of the ridiculous conclusions people drew or should I rather say pulled out of thei.. eh ... thin air.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top