HYPOTHESIS PAPER
A NATURAL THEORY OF MUSIC BASED ON MICROMECHANICAL RESONANCES BETWEEN COCHLEAR SENSING CELLS
Andrew Bell 1, A-F  
 
More details
Hide details
1
John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Andrew Bell   

Andrew Bell, Eccles Institute of Neuroscience, John Curtin School of Medical Research, 131 Garran Road, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; email: andrew.bell@anu.edu.au
Publication date: 2019-09-30
 
J Hear Sci 2019;9(3):39–49
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The origins of music remain obscure. Here it is pointed out that the outer hair cells in the cochlea lie approximately in a regular, hexagonal array, so it appears significant that important musical ratios – in particular the semitone, octave, perfect fifth, and major third – appear in the relative distances between adjacent cells. The speculation made here is that if the intercell distances are inherently tuned in this way, then incoming sound could initiate reverberating activity between the cells, and a musical ratio could be signaled by simultaneous standing waves in one cell–cell distance and in another which adjoins it. Essentially, the spacings between the cells might correspond to the lengths of miniature, musically tuned cavities. This speculative model of cell–cell interaction can explain recent observations that the human cochlea spontaneously emits low-level sound at intervals close to a semitone, and that the hearing thresholds of some subjects exhibit a whole “keyboard” of semitone-like intervals. These recent findings are striking, and appear more than coincidence. They prompt the key question, why? A possible answer may lie, it is suggested, with the distinct 2-dimensional geometry of the outer hair cells in the plane of the basilar membrane, which commonly exhibits a 19° alignment. This angle corresponds to a relative distance of 1.06, which is close to a semitone. It is pointed out that the same geometry which generates a natural semitone also produces other musically significant ratios. Perhaps, then, music might be an innate property of the human auditory system – and hence that there might be a natural basis for preferred musical intervals. Natural theories have often been criticised, with some saying that music is a learned faculty and depends only on culture. However, evidence has accumulated that there do seem to be musical universals, and therefore that music might indeed have a natural basis, most commonly thought to be via some neural processing in the brain. The explanatory model put forward here as the basis for further exploration suggests that musical analysis might actually begin in the periphery – in the cochlea itself.
 
REFERENCES (59)
1.
McDermott J, Hauser M. The origins of music: innateness, uniqueness, and evolution. Music Perception, 2005;23:29–59.
 
2.
Justus T, Hutsler JJ. Fundamental issues in the evolutionary psychology of music: assessing innateness and domain specificity. Music Perception, 2005;23:1–27.
 
3.
Honing H, ten Cate C, Peretz I, Trehub SE. Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2015;370:e20140088.
 
4.
Killin A. The origins of music: evidence, theory, and prospects. Music & Science, 2018;1:1–23.
 
5.
Ball P. The Music Instinct: How music works and why we can’t do without it. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
 
6.
Parncutt R. Harmony: A psychoacoustical approach. New York: Springer; 1989.
 
7.
Patel AD. Music, Language, and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
 
8.
Burns EM, Ward WD. Intervals, scales, and tuning. In: Deutsch D, editor. The Psychology of Music. New York: Academic; 1982. p. 241–69.
 
9.
Shera CA. The spiral staircase: tonotopic microstructure and cochlear tuning. J Neurosci, 2015;35:4683–90.
 
10.
Motallebzadeh H, Soons JAM, Puria S. Cochlear amplification and tuning depend on the cellular arrangement within the organ of Corti. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2018;115:5762–7.
 
11.
Bell JA. The Underwater Piano: A Resonance Theory of Cochlear Mechanics. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra 2005.
 
12.
Helmholtz HLF. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music. London: Longmans, Green; 1875.
 
13.
Bell A. Musical ratios in geometrical spacing of outer hair cells in the cochlea: strings of an underwater piano? 7th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition; Sydney: Causal Productions, Adelaide; 2002.
 
14.
Bell A, Jedrzejczak WW. The 1.06 ratio in the cochlea: evidence and outlook for a natural musical semitone. PeerJ, 2017;5:e4192.
 
15.
Dewey JB, Dhar S. Wideband profiles of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in humans. MoH Proceedings, 2014.
 
16.
Sekerkova G, Richter C-P, Bartles JR. Roles of the espin actinbundling proteins in the morphogenesis and stabilization of hair cell stereocilia revealed in CBA/CaJ congenic jerker mice. PLOS Genetics, 2011;7:e1002032.
 
17.
Shera CA, Charaziak KK. Cochlear frequency tuning and otoacoustic emissions. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 2018:10.1101/cshperspect.a033498.
 
18.
Dewey JB, Lee J, Dhar S. Effects of contralateral acoustic stimulation on spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and hearing threshold fine structure. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2014;15:897–914.
 
19.
Sethares WA. Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale. London: Springer; 1998.
 
20.
Larrouy-Maestri P. “I know it when I hear it”: on listeners’ perception of mistuning. Music & Science, 2018;1:1–10.
 
21.
McAdams S. Music: a science of the mind? Contemporary Music Review, 1987;2:1–61.
 
22.
Braun M. High-multiple spontaneous otoacoustic emissions confirm theory of local tuned oscillators. SpringerPlus, 2013;2:135.
 
23.
Bonnard D, Micheyl C, Semal C, Dauman R, Demany L. Auditory discrimination of frequency ratios: the octave singularity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2013;39:788–801.
 
24.
Bonnard D, Dauman R, Semal C, Demany L. Harmonic fusion and pitch affinity: is there a direct link? Hear Res, 2016;333:247–54.
 
25.
Van den Brink G. Octave and fifth settings for pure tones and residue sounds. In: Evans EF, Wilson JP, editors. Psychophysics and Physiology of Hearing. London: Academic Press; 1977, p. 373–9.
 
26.
McKinney MF, Delgutte B. A possible neurophysiological basis of the octave enlargement effect. J Acoust Soc Am, 1999;106:2679–92.
 
27.
Levelt WJM, van de Geer JP, Plomp R. Triadic comparisons of musical intervals. Br J Math Stat Psychol, 1966;19:163–79.
 
28.
Hall DE, Hess JT. Perception of musical interval tuning. Music Perception, 1984;2:166–95.
 
29.
Demany L, Pressnitzer D, Semal C. Tuning properties of the auditory frequency-shift detectors. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009;126:1342–8.
 
30.
Demany L, Semal C. Harmonic and melodic octave templates. J Acoust Soc Am, 1990;88:2126–35.
 
31.
Bell A, Wit HP. Cochlear impulse responses resolved into sets of gammatones: the case for beating of closely spaced local resonances. PeerJ, 2018;6:e6016.
 
32.
Brownell WE. What is electromotility? The history of its discovery and its relevance to acoustics. Acoustics Today, 2017;13(1):20–7.
 
33.
Bredberg G, Ades HW, Engström H. Scanning electron microscopy of the normal and pathologically altered organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol, 1972; Suppl. 301:3–48.
 
34.
Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK, Probst R, Coats AC. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in a nonhuman primate. II. Cochlear anatomy. Hear Res, 1988;33:69–94.
 
35.
Bell A, Fletcher NH. The cochlear amplifier as a standing wave: “squirting” waves between rows of outer hair cells? J Acoust Soc Am, 2004;116:1016–24.
 
36.
Brown S, Jordania J. Universals in the world’s musics. Psychology of Music, 2011;41:229–48.
 
37.
Bidelman GM. The role of the auditory brainstem in processing musically relevant pitch. Frontiers in Psychology, 2013;4:e264.
 
38.
Huron D. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
 
39.
Pesic P. Hearing the irrational: music and the development of the modern concept of number. Isis, 2010;101:501–30.
 
40.
Jordania J. Choral Singing in Human Evolution. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishers; 2015.
 
41.
van Noorden L. Two channel pitch perception. In: Clynes M, editor. Music, Mind, and Brain. New York: Plenum; 1982.
 
42.
Cousineau M, McDermott JH, Peretz I. The basis of musical consonance as revealed by congenital amusia. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2012;109:19858–63.
 
43.
Rakowski A. Intonation variants of musical intervals in isolation and in musical contexts. Psychology of Music, 1990;18:60–72.
 
44.
Patel AD. A new approach to the cognitive neuroscience of melody. In: Peretz I, Zatorre RJ, editors. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003, p. 325–45.
 
45.
Vos PG, Troost JM. Ascending and descending melodic intervals: statistical findings and their perceptual relevance. Music Perception, 1989;6:383–96.
 
46.
Krumhansl CL. Tonal hierachies and rare intervals in music cognition. Music Perception, 1990;7:309–24.
 
47.
Jackendoff R, Lerdahl F. The capacity for music: what is it, and what’s special about it? Cognition, 2006;100:33–72.
 
48.
Wright AA, Rivera JJ, Hulse SH, Shyan M, Neiworth JJ. Music perception and octave generalization in rhesus monkeys. J Exp Psychol Gen, 2000;129:291–307.
 
49.
Rahn J. “Equiheptatonic” tuning in Thai classical music: strict propriety and step sizes. Music & Science, 2019;2:1–15.
 
50.
Demany L, Ramos C. On the binding of successive sounds: perceiving shifts in nonperceived pitches. J Acoust Soc Am, 2005;117:833–41.
 
51.
Bidelman GM, Heinz MG. Auditory-nerve responses predict pitch attributes related to musical consonance–dissonance for normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2011;130:1488–502.
 
52.
Cousineau M, Demany L, Pressnitzer D. The role of peripheral resolvability in pitch-sequence processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2010;128:EL236–41.
 
53.
Peretz I, Zatorre RJ. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
 
54.
McDermott HJ, Schultz AF, Undurraga EA, Godoy RA. Indifference to dissonance in native Amazonians reveals cultural variation in music perception. Nature, 2016;535:547–50.
 
55.
McDermott JH. What can experiments reveal about the origins of music? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009;18:164–8.
 
56.
Bidelman GM, Grall J. Functional organization for musical consonance and tonal pitch hierarchy in human auditory cortex. Neuroimage, 2014;101:204–14.
 
57.
Bidelman GM, Krishnan A. Neural correlates of consonance, dissonance, and the hierarchy of musical pitch in the human brainstem. J Neurosci, 2009;29:13165–71.
 
58.
Peretz I, Hyde KL. What is specific to music processing? Insights from congenital amusia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003;7:362–7.
 
59.
Fitch WT. The biology and evolution of music: a comparative perspective. Cognition, 2006;100:173–215.