Please unsubscribe me

[Sally Haggard Bogacz <sallybogacz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please unsubscribe me from this list.
--- Automatic digest processor
<LISTSERV@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> wrote:

> There are 5 messages totalling 278 lines in this
> issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Traveling waves or resonance? (5)
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:51:26 +1000
> From:    Andrew Bell <andrew.bell@ANU.EDU.AU>
> Subject: Re: Traveling waves or resonance?
>
> Martin:
>
> I think your efforts at clarification actually muddy
> the waters, as I =
> can't
> agree with your attempts to dispel two "popular
> misconceptions".
>
> 1. Of course Gold predicted spontaneous otoacoustic
> emissions as well as =
> the
> cochlear amplifier. The reason is that the former
> depend on the latter. =
> As
> he explained it, positive feedback could easily be
> excessive and lead to
> continuous oscillation. Following the logic through,
> he placed a =
> microphone
> in an ear canal and tried to detect the oscillation.
> A wonderful =
> experiment
> that had to wait until Kemp's efforts a quarter of a
> century later for
> success.
>
> You criticise Gold's experiment because he caused
> the ear to ring =
> beforehand
> by imposing a loud sound, so you say he was really
> trying to detect =
> tonal
> tinnitus. Yes, there is a leap in logic in linking
> tonal tinnitus with
> spontaneous mechanical activity produced by positive
> feedback in the
> cochlea, but the leap is reasonable - both phenomena
> have similar
> characteristics (continuous narrow-band oscillation)
> and relate to the =
> ear.
>
> It turns out that usually the frequencies of the two
> phenomena are
> different, but there are cases in which the
> objective SOAE frequencies =
> match
> the subjective ones (as you allow with your
> qualifier "vast majority of
> cases"). I can subjectively hear the 1440 Hz SOAE in
> my left ear, for
> example. But then you say tinnitus can "never" be
> picked up with a
> microphone, which, in the light of the foregoing, is
> clearly not the =
> case.
> Even if you meant that tinnitus originating as
> neural activity can never
> drive the cochlea in reverse and be detected with a
> microphone, that is =
> just
> a preconceived notion, as we just don't know. It's a
> leap of logic which =
> is
> exactly the opposite of Gold's conjecture that
> tinnitus _always_ has a
> counterpart in the cochlea and ear canal.
>
> I remain open-minded on the possible connection
> between the subjective
> (tinnitus) and objective (SOAEs) aspects of the
> auditory system. It's an
> exciting one that is best not prejudged. As the
> saying goes, if it looks
> like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a
> duck, then it's very
> likely that it is a duck.
>
> 2. I would not dismiss as "silly" Gold's argument
> that amplification =
> before
> detection is a sound strategy in signal detection.
> It means that
> signal-to-noise ratio is preserved, and that is a
> fundamental physical
> principle which has to be obeyed in order to detect
> signals down at the
> theoretical limits.=20
>
>
> Andrew.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Andrew Bell
> Research School of Biological Sciences
> The Australian National University
> Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
> T: +61 2 6125 9634
> F: +61 2 6125 3808
> andrew.bell@anu.edu.au
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception
> [mailto:AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of
> Martin Braun
> Sent: Monday, 18 October 2004 4:42 AM
> To: AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
> Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Traveling waves or
> resonance?
>
> On Friday, October 15, Andrew Bell wrote:
>
> > .... Happily,
> > progress has been made in my endeavours to revive
> a resonance theory =
> of
> > hearing
>
> Current knowledge on resonance, traveling waves, and
> amplifiers in the =
> inner
> ear goes well beyond that what Andrew Bell now
> reviews. Also, the main =
> parts
> of this information is easily accessible on the web.
>
> I would like to comment, however, on two popular
> misconceptions, which =
> were
> now repeated again, and for which no, or very
> little, information is
> available on the web.
>
> 1) Thomas Gold predicted the cochlear amplifier, but
> not otoacoustic
> emissions (OAEs). The "ringing in the ear" which he
> tried to measure, =
> was
> tonal tinnitus, which, in the vast majority of
> cases, has nothing to do =
> with
> OAEs. Such tinnitus is nearly always neurally based
> and can never be =
> picked
> up with any microphone.
>
> 2) Gold's argument that the inner ear "needed" a
> mechanical amplifier =
> before
> the stage of neural transmission is actually quite
> silly. Other sensory
> organs have their amplification cascades on a
> biochemical level within =
> the
> sensory cells. The same also works in hearing. Only
> birds and mammals =
> have
> specialized mechanical pre-amp cells, as an
> additional mechanism. This
> "design" provides several advantages, but it is by
> no means a =
> precondition
> of hyper-sensitive hearing.
>
> Martin
>
> ----------------------------
> Martin Braun
> Neuroscience of Music
> S-671 95 Kl=E4ssbol
> Sweden
> web site:
> http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:01:24 +0200
> From:    Eckard Blumschein
> <Eckard.Blumschein@E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE>
> Subject: Re: Traveling waves or resonance?
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> May I ask you and Martin for not neglecting our
> common
=== message truncated ===


=====
Sally Haggard Bogacz Ph. D
Clarify Concepts
Email:  sally@clarifyconcepts.com
www.clarifyconcepts.com