A long time ago, I was told that as good as cats' hearing is in general, humans are better at determining the direction from which a sound came than cats are, and that humans are more gifted in this regard than pretty much anything else other than owls. (I'm not sure about bats.) Given the source of this news, I was inclined to believe it -- it came from someone whose business it is to know such things -- but nearly everyone else I've mentioned it to has doubted me. Enough so that I've wound up conceding that hey, just maybe, I mis-heard or misunderstood what I was told...
It's something I think about a lot as I watch Perrine, and the more I watch her (and other animals I come in contact with), the more personally-observed data I have that supports this claim. And I'm not just talking about sharp, echoey noises in environments with lots of reflective surfaces -- Hell, those'll fool anything. No, this even includes mouse sounds, human voices, and other cats. Animals will often hear things that I can't hear until I get much closer, but if we hear something at the same time I'm likely to get the direction first (and usually more accurately). If Perrine listens long enough, those swivelling sound-catchers atop her head (and her ability to get closer to the source of the sound) do help her a lot eventually, and she'll home in on the sound if it goes on long enough and she's close enough to it (such as a mouse under a mound of plastic bags at a distance of eighteen inches (about half a meter[2])), and admittedly even on the speed test I don't win every time, but most of the time and at most distances, I seem to have better direction resolution.
Yeah, I'm a musician, but I don't think my hearing is exceptional in that way (except maybe when a fibromyalgia flare includes hyperacuity, but that tends to be greater awareness of sound and more sounds being physically painful, not so much Super Hearing, though I've heard of fibromyalgia patients for whom it seems to go in that direction). And my sample size is small (one human, a handful of cats, and three dogs), so I'm not describing a properly scientific test of the hypothesis. But the data I've observed so far are consistent with what I was told years ago that real scientific tests had already shown.
I'm not sure whether blind cats can place one-time sounds more accurately, are just faster at homing in on continuing sounds, or merely cope rather well with ordinary feline auditory processing. The last blind cat I had a chance to observe[3], I didn't get to spend enough time with, and the one before that was before I'd heard this bit about directional hearing and started paying attention.
Cats are pretty amazing -- there's no question of that -- but I think this is another example of an area where humans tend to a) process data subconsciously and thus not realize how much they're doing (consider Feynman's casual experiment regarding olfaction), and b) sell themselves short because of the meme that says humankind's strength is all in intelligence, tool-using, and being generalists, so we "can't possibly be That Good at any one thing" compared to the other animals. Actually, while we may not be best at these things, we're pretty damned high on the list when it comes to vision, hearing, endurance, and flexibility of diet, and some individuals are not too shabby in terms of strength and speed. I'm not sure how we stack up against other animals on olfaction; the only olfactory comparisons with which I'm familiar are to dogs, cats, and sharks.
[1] Don't answer that; I'm being silly.
[2] For my metric friends, I figure most of y'all know this but I'm uncomfortable not saying it anyhow: no, it's actually a little less than half a meter, but "eighteen" when followed by "inches" should usually be treated as a one-significant-digit base-thirty-six number, not a two-significant-digit base-ten number, so "half a meter" and "half a yard" are close enough to be within the error implied by the phrasing of the measurement. So there. I really meant "fifteen to twenty inches" anyhow.
[3] I may have forgotten other blind cats, but the second of the two I remember lived in my neighbourhood three houses ago, and the way I realized it was blind was that it had to spiral in towards me to find me when I tried to introduce myself. This suggests that that individual was not better at pinpointing sounds than sighted cats. The first blind cat, on the other hand (whom two people on my friends list knew far better than I), was notoriously good at "swat" with humans, and at normal play and status-defending behaviour with other (sighted) cats, which could be explained either by being better at determining directions of sounds in general, or by proximity to the sounds in those particular activities (and possible air-current detection using fur and whiskers).
(no subject)
To save yourself a footnote, just parse it as "about half a yard/meter." Or, the heck with it, "a cubit" and then footnote that.
Happy New Year. I fell asleep about nine in the evening.
I favor the "processing speed" explanation, myself. Although stereo does depend on the distance between receptors. Large (lion-sized) cats might do better.
(no subject)
As for the distance between the receptors, that did occur to me as I was writing that entry. I wonder whether adjusting for face-to-sound-source distance can compensate for the distance-between-the-ears distance to compare "raw" direction-sensing skill, or whether there are speed-of-sound and/or phase timing issues as well as the difference in angles.
Hmm. I may need to spend a lot of time at the zoo when the weather warms up.
(no subject)
The yard is between, but you can use 'Two cubits' to keep the flavor. And four cubits is a fathom, of course.
(no subject)
We may have evolved into hunters, but we were also prey in the beginning.
(no subject)
"We may have evolved into hunters, but we were also prey in the beginning."
Hmm. Is this something where we're anatomically in-between (as our digestive systems are clearly a compromise between carnivore and herbivore, not optimized for either), or are we more in the "prey but got over it" category?
Note that I haven't quite figured out why we should be so good at this yet. Even being as good as a dog or cat (or deer or rabbit ... hey, I know someone with a rabbit I can observe!) would be enough to keep us aware of aproaching threats. But I wondered for years why we should be able to see clearly so much farther than we can throw a spear (even with an atlatl) and well enough to drive a car so much faster than we can run, until someone provided the clue that our brachiating ancestors had to plan swing-and-leap routes many branches ahead, so maybe someone will provide the clue I should have seen for this one as well.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Interesting observation. People do tend to think this, but it's not true. Humans are really, really, top 5% of species, good at a number of odd tasks. We're excellent at dumping waste heat. This allows us to run longer, if not faster, than most other mammals. If a man can track a horse, he can catch up to it, eventually.
If you make a chart of species' ability to swim and dive, mankind shows up next to the sea otters and other mostly aquatic mammals. This has led some to suppose that our evolutionary line had a sea ape stage. (If anyone's mind is conjuring fancies that other branch stayed in the oceans and evolved into H.P.'s Deep Ones, that's not my fault.)
It may be that a species needs to be very capable at some things before intelligence can become an option.
(no subject)
Interesting thought!