>> In article <3aei0b$76t at news.cs.brandeis.edu>, bradw at cs.brandeis.edu (Brad
>> Wyble) wrote:
>> >
>> > More
>> > specifically, its easy for an individual to maintain a 60 Hz beat, but
>> > as the frequency decreases, it becomes increasingly difficult to stay
>> > with it and predict the next beat without maintaining an internal
>> > counting mechanism of some kind that divides the intervals between
>beats into
>> > subintervals.
>>>> 60 Hz? As in 60 cycles per second? I would be suprised if a human could
>> resolve individual acoustic events occurring at a rate above about 10-20
>> Hz. Could you please expand upon this statement? If it's true, I would be
>> very interested in finding out more.
>>>>Betcha the original poster meant 60 beats per _minute_, which is about as
>slow as is easy to count regularly. A really slow piece of music, like a
>funeral march, is around 60 bpm.
>>Hannah
>
Given that beat and frequency mean two different things maybe the
original poster did mean 60Hz. Whatever, (as suggested above) there is
no way anyone could resolve individual events at >10-20Hz. Sounds above
this frequency sound like a continuous noise (ie. Guttman and Julez
196?).
I would be interested in corresponding with anyone who is doing research
examining issues related to the temporal resolution of the brain,
especially anyone doing cognitive/behavioural/electrophysiological
research using auditory stimuli.
Also if anyone knows of a good psychophysical procedure to determine SL
as opposed to SPL (intensity threshold) and a procedure to determine
"delta f" (frequency difference threshold) I would consider putting you
on my christmas card list!
Regards Bill
bill.budd at mq.edu.au
--
bb
bb
