>> 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
>> > 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.
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
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!
bill.budd at mq.edu.au