Re: HC selectivity ... was Re: Physiological models of cochlea activity - alternatives to the travelling wave

[Erik Larsen <elarsen@xxxxxxx>]

I wouldn't want to insult anybody's intelligence by posting the 
calculation of that number online. Its not a meaningful thing to do 
anyway for a cochlea with dysfunctional outer hair cells. Its like 
asking how long it would take someone to run a marathon with a broken leg.

Specifically for the issue of motion sensitivity, you appear to assume 
that the cochlea somehow behaves as a laser doppler vibrometer: you take 
the limitations of this piece of equipment to somehow imply that the 
cochlea would have the same limitations under similar circumstances. If 
you could describe to the readers of this thread how you arrived at that 
conclusion, I'm sure we will tremendously enjoy reading about it.

Martin Braun wrote:
> Erik Larsen wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Martin meant that nobody has been able to measure BM motion 
> > below 60 dB with dysfunctional outer hair cells? But that wouldn't be 
> > a proof there is no motion. In fact, it would be difficult to 
> > understand why there wouldn't be any motion below 60 dB, however small.
>
> For many years now, the measurement sensitivity for BM excursions has 
> been well below 1 nanometer. Now, if BM motion is < 1 nm at 60 dB, how 
> big then can it be at 0 dB?
>
> Please do the maths, and then come back. You can be sure that all 
> readers of this thread will tremendously enjoy that figure.
>
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Braun
> Neuroscience of Music
> S-671 95 Klässbol
> Sweden
> web site: http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm 

--
Erik Larsen
PhD candidate Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology
http://web.mit.edu/shbt

Whenever anyone says, "theoretically," they really mean, "not really."
		-- Dave Parnas