Re: Fwd: To model or not to model - that is the question ? ... was Re: HC selectivity ... was Re: Physiological models of cochlea activity - alternatives to the travelling wave

[John Bates <jkbates@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Matt and all,

In general, I like your philosophical point of view on modeling. I 
think it should be pursued. This paragraph in your response to Martin 
has an interesting point:
"Unfortunately ... this proves everything and says nothing ... the
significance of your paper makes us look deeper beyond the cochlea -
which I agree with ... however  almost nothing exists in nature without
having reason for existing. (My emphasis) The process of turning 
vibration into a
perceived sound takes many interacting steps. For this reason, the
peripheral mechanisms are as significant as the central mechanisms."
What I see in this current  discussion is a plethora of studies and 
interpretations of the minutiae of cochlear processes before 
performance requirements for designing a cochlear model have been 
established. As you have indicated elsewhere, these requirements go 
far beyond such things as frequency resolution, hair cell response, 
or whether there are or are not traveling waves. Such matters are 
secondary functions to the primary factors of sensory perception 
related to an animal's survival,  which, after all, is the reason why 
nature invented cochleas. So the main question is: Can anyone do an 
analysis based on first principles of survival so as to specify what 
a cochlear model should accomplish and how it should be built? Given 
such a list of specifications we could then have a credible 
computational model.

This "soft science" approach may seem too idealistic but I can see no 
way to devise a mathematical model that can deal with issues of survival.

John Bates


At 10:56 AM 10/2/07, you wrote:

> > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:48:01 +1000
> > From: Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: To model or not to model - that is the question ? ... was Re: HC
> >  selectivity ... was Re: Physiological models of cochlea activity -
> >  alternatives to the travelling wave
> > X-Originating-IP: [132.206.27.49]
> > Sender: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Reply-to: Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx>
> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 
> > drizzle.cc.mcgill.ca id
> >                     l8T6m4b6003968
> > X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
> > X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CADGP/UZ5LEC//2dsb2JhbACBWQ
> > X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,212,1188743400"; d="scan'208";a="157167030"
> > X-PMX-Version: 5.3.3.310218, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.2.313940,
> >  Antispam-Data: 2007.9.28.232936
> > Comments: cc: Martin Braun <nombraun@xxxxxxxxx>
> > List-Owner: <mailto:AUDITORY-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:AUDITORY-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:AUDITORY-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > List-Archive: <http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>
> > List-Help: <http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>,
> >  <mailto:LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?body=INFO AUDITORY>
> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)
> > X-Perlmx-Spam: Probability=7%, RuleHits=__CD 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0,
> >        __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> >  __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> >
> > Martin and others,
> >
> > Too many neurologists and physiologists find a 'new' part of a cell and
> > think they have found gold.
> >
> > The current gold rush is the ribbon synapse.
> >
> > The process of hearing is a complex multi-disciplinary combination of
> > mechanics, electromagnetics, neurology and physiology. Not any one
> > process acts without being affected by the other.
> >
> > Using one of your publications as an example ... if you will allow me to
> > put words in your mouth :
> > We know that the central processes of hearing are statistically
> > significant [1]. For this reason, the central processes are the process
> > of hearing.
> >
> > Unfortunately ... this proves everything and says nothing ... the
> > significance of your paper makes us look deeper beyond the cochlea -
> > which I agree with ... however almost nothing exists in nature without
> > having reason for existing. The process of turning vibration into a
> > perceived sound takes many many interacting steps. For this reason, the
> > peripheral mechanisms are as significant as the central mechanisms.
> >
> > I am a fan of your research into the central processes of hearing ...
> > however am surprised that you do not like models...
> > I personally don't like non-physiological models of hearing.
> > I can see no other way to explain how we hear other then to use
> > multi-disciplinary physiological models ...
> >
> > Matt