Are there two kinds of pitch?

Here

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/specpitch.html

Terhardt speaks of pitch as a psychological attribute. Then he
posits the existence of different pitch detection mechanisms for pure
tones and complex tones and claims that because of this there are two
kinds of pitch, spectral and virtual.

I don't think this makes sense. Even if there were different
mechanisms for pure and complex tones, that doesn't imply that there
are two psychological attributes. The phenomenal character (i.e. what
the experience is like) of pure tone pitch and complex tone pitch is
the same. The pitch of a frequency modulated tone where the
modulation index increases starting from zero (at zero the tone is
pure) doesn't suddenly change its' pitch quality when the sidebands
appear.

I also don't like the term "virtual pitch" as it implies that there
is something illusory about it. It seems to me that this is a relic
of the notion that we hear the fundamental, that is the frequency
component at the fundamental frequency, when we hear the pitch of a
complex tone even when the fundamental is missing. Yes, surely pitch
is correlated with the fundamental frequency of a complex tone but
that is not the same thing as the fundamental. The former is a
property of the sound wave while the latter is a particular component
of that sound wave. Confusing the two would be a category mistake.
Pitch is simply the psychological attribute that correlates with
periodicity.

Kalle Aho

I would disagree. Whether a sound has some sort of "spectral pitch", as he puts it (giving fricative phonemes as a possible example), or whether it's a complex tone with a possible missing fundamental, both sounds exploit some weaker or stronger degree of periodicity, which can be found even in the "shapes" of the sounds themselves, not only just in the way we hear them. And the pitch is determined by this periodicity.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
> Here
>
> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/specpitch.html
>
> Terhardt speaks of pitch as a psychological attribute. Then he
> posits the existence of different pitch detection mechanisms
> for pure tones and complex tones and claims that because of
> this there are two kinds of pitch, spectral and virtual.
>
> I don't think this makes sense. Even if there were different
> mechanisms for pure and complex tones, that doesn't imply that
> there are two psychological attributes. The phenomenal character
> (i.e. what the experience is like) of pure tone pitch and complex
> tone pitch is the same.

I don't think it is for me. And people can tune an oscillator
to match a stimulus tone more accurately if the stimulus is a
complex than if it's pure.

I forget if he talks about it on this page, but there's also
the case of a complex tone with f0 > 4KHz. It still has pitch,
but it's qualitatively much more like a pure tone - a bit
ambiguous. 4KHz is the limit of the volley mechanism of the
inner hair cells (1KHz for each cell). Most of the spectral
energy of music and speech is also located below 4KHz.

> Pitch is simply the psychological attribute that correlates with
> periodicity.

Then it shouldn't exist above 4K. To me it seems like one
aspect of pitch does give out there, but obviously not all of
it, hence, two types of pitch.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> >
> > Here
> >
> > http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/specpitch.html
> >
> > Terhardt speaks of pitch as a psychological attribute. Then he
> > posits the existence of different pitch detection mechanisms
> > for pure tones and complex tones and claims that because of
> > this there are two kinds of pitch, spectral and virtual.
> >
> > I don't think this makes sense. Even if there were different
> > mechanisms for pure and complex tones, that doesn't imply that
> > there are two psychological attributes. The phenomenal character
> > (i.e. what the experience is like) of pure tone pitch and complex
> > tone pitch is the same.
>
> I don't think it is for me. And people can tune an oscillator
> to match a stimulus tone more accurately if the stimulus is a
> complex than if it's pure.
>
> I forget if he talks about it on this page, but there's also
> the case of a complex tone with f0 > 4KHz. It still has pitch,
> but it's qualitatively much more like a pure tone - a bit
> ambiguous. 4KHz is the limit of the volley mechanism of the
> inner hair cells (1KHz for each cell). Most of the spectral
> energy of music and speech is also located below 4KHz.

I'm not sure if you disagree about the number of different pitch
attributes or just about the phenomenal character of pure tone and
complex tone pitches or both.

Pure tones may have more ambiguous pitch but it is still pitch, the
very same attribute of sound. They also form recognisable musical
intervals with each other and with complex tones (at least in the
frequency range of music). How can they do that if they have a
completely different attribute?

> > Pitch is simply the psychological attribute that correlates with
> > periodicity.
>
> Then it shouldn't exist above 4K. To me it seems like one
> aspect of pitch does give out there, but obviously not all of
> it, hence, two types of pitch.

But pitch is still correlated with periodicity even when it is not
detected by a periodicity mechanism.

By the way, I actually think that there is another kind of more
indefinite "pitch" that all sounds have, not just periodic ones. On
the basis of this attribute many people can approximately tell how
spectral energy is distributed, whether a sound is trebly or bass
heavy or both etc. but I think this is more properly understood as an
aspect of timbre.

Kalle Aho

Kalle wrote:
> > I forget if he talks about it on this page, but there's also
> > the case of a complex tone with f0 > 4KHz. It still has pitch,
> > but it's qualitatively much more like a pure tone - a bit
> > ambiguous. 4KHz is the limit of the volley mechanism of the
> > inner hair cells (1KHz for each cell). Most of the spectral
> > energy of music and speech is also located below 4KHz.
>
> I'm not sure if you disagree about the number of different pitch
> attributes or just about the phenomenal character of pure tone and
> complex tone pitches or both.

I think there's a single pitch gestalt, but it's not a perfect
one, and in some circumstances I feel I can phenomenally detect
two different things under the hood. It's hard to know quite
what to make of such feelings however.

> > > Pitch is simply the psychological attribute that correlates
> > > with periodicity.
> >
> > Then it shouldn't exist above 4K. To me it seems like one
> > aspect of pitch does give out there, but obviously not all of
> > it, hence, two types of pitch.
>
> But pitch is still correlated with periodicity even when it is not
> detected by a periodicity mechanism.

I suppose... correlated is a strange way to put it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Kalle wrote:
> > I'm not sure if you disagree about the number of different pitch
> > attributes or just about the phenomenal character of pure tone and
> > complex tone pitches or both.
>
> I think there's a single pitch gestalt, but it's not a perfect
> one, and in some circumstances I feel I can phenomenally detect
> two different things under the hood. It's hard to know quite
> what to make of such feelings however.

That's really interesting. So if I understand correctly, you think
that pure tones have both of these things. I believe that Terhardt
thinks pure tones always have only spectral/place pitch. I don't
agree with him. Do you think there might be a connection
with the mel scale (see message #85876)?

> > > > Pitch is simply the psychological attribute that correlates
> > > > with periodicity.
> > >
> > > Then it shouldn't exist above 4K. To me it seems like one
> > > aspect of pitch does give out there, but obviously not all of
> > > it, hence, two types of pitch.
> >
> > But pitch is still correlated with periodicity even when it is not
> > detected by a periodicity mechanism.
>
> I suppose... correlated is a strange way to put it.

I go with a stronger claim that there is a biological subsystem
whose function is to detect periodicity in the signal. This same
subsystem might have both time domain and frequency domain
mechanisms for periodicity detection.

I also think that this periodicity detection has an upper frequency
limit, probably around 4K. Beyond this there is only the more timbral
place "pitch".

So in this sense there are two kinds of pitch, place/spectral
pitch and periodicity/virtual pitch. It's just that the
place pitch is not generally experienced as a vast composite of
spectral singularities but as an overall spectral shape.

Kalle Aho

Kalle wrote:
> > I think there's a single pitch gestalt, but it's not a perfect
> > one, and in some circumstances I feel I can phenomenally detect
> > two different things under the hood. It's hard to know quite
> > what to make of such feelings however.
>
> That's really interesting. So if I understand correctly, you think
> that pure tones have both of these things.

The phenomenal sensation for me is that they have only one.

> Do you think there might be a connection
> with the mel scale (see message #85876)?

Not really.

> > I suppose... correlated is a strange way to put it.
>
> I go with a stronger claim that there is a biological subsystem
> whose function is to detect periodicity in the signal. This same
> subsystem might have both time domain and frequency domain
> mechanisms for periodicity detection.

Are you familiar with Oxenham et al 2004?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Kalle wrote:
> > > I think there's a single pitch gestalt, but it's not a perfect
> > > one, and in some circumstances I feel I can phenomenally detect
> > > two different things under the hood. It's hard to know quite
> > > what to make of such feelings however.
> >
> > That's really interesting. So if I understand correctly, you think
> > that pure tones have both of these things.
>
> The phenomenal sensation for me is that they have only one.

Then in what circumstances do you have this "two different things
under the hood" feeling?

> > > I suppose... correlated is a strange way to put it.
> >
> > I go with a stronger claim that there is a biological subsystem
> > whose function is to detect periodicity in the signal. This same
> > subsystem might have both time domain and frequency domain
> > mechanisms for periodicity detection.
>
> Are you familiar with Oxenham et al 2004?

No, I'm not.

My point is that separate cues can contribute to a unitary sensation.
For example, we know that auditory localization uses different cues
but all contribute to a unitary perception. Terhardt on the other
hand seems to confuse the number of mechanisms with the number of
psychological attributes in the case of pitch.

Kalle Aho

> > > That's really interesting. So if I understand correctly,
> > > you think that pure tones have both of these things.
> >
> > The phenomenal sensation for me is that they have only one.
>
> Then in what circumstances do you have this "two different things
> under the hood" feeling?

Pure tones and complex tones > 4K have a similar quality
which is different from complex tones < 4K.

> > > I go with a stronger claim that there is a biological
> > > subsystem whose function is to detect periodicity in the
> > > signal. This same subsystem might have both time domain
> > > and frequency domain mechanisms for periodicity detection.
> >
> > Are you familiar with Oxenham et al 2004?
>
> No, I'm not.

It's an interesting experiment though I have some outstanding
questions about it, and I have problems with how people have
interpreted the results (Shama 2004 for instance). You should
check it out.

> My point is that separate cues can contribute to a unitary
> sensation.

Indeed. That's sort of the whole purpose of the brain - to
find causes for noisy and disparate sensory inputs.

-Carl

> Pure tones and complex tones > 4K have a similar quality
> which is different from complex tones < 4K.
>

Couldn't the cause of this simply be the limit of human hearing?
15k to 20k or so for most people. And this isn't a sudden cutoff but a
gentle slope of lesser hearing starting above.. 4k?
So for a 5k sound at most (with degredation) harmonics 2 octaves above can
be heard.
As for noise, noise become less noise like and more tone like when there
isn't much bandwidth, so a noise that is for instance sharply high passed at
5k is also low passed by the ear from 5k till 15k-20k, making the complex
tone much less complex?

> > My point is that separate cues can contribute to a unitary
> > sensation.
>
> Indeed. That's sort of the whole purpose of the brain - to
> find causes for noisy and disparate sensory inputs.
>
> -Carl
>

Oh that's a great statement!
And so true.
It is why I think music is JI. JI = brainmath :)

Marcel