[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

results for the favorite paper poll



Thanks to the nine people who responded!

And the winner (so far) is … with two nominations … drum roll …

·        Kujawa, Sharon G., and M. Charles Liberman. "Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss." The Journal of Neuroscience 29.45 (2009): 14077-14085.

Why? “really made me re-think noise exposure and supra-threshold hearing impairments. I found it physiology-intensive for my little audiologist's mind, but as far as I can tell the work is very carefully performed, and the conclusions appropriate....and sobering“


All other papers got one nomination (in no particular order, and with reason, if there was one)

·        Dean, Isabel, Nicol S. Harper, and David McAlpine. "Neural population coding of sound level adapts to stimulus statistics." Nature neuroscience 8.12 (2005): 1684-1689. 

·        Zilany, Muhammad SA, and Laurel H. Carney. "Power-law dynamics in an auditory-nerve model can account for neural adaptation to sound-level statistics." The Journal of Neuroscience 30.31 (2010): 10380-10390. 

·        Jonathan B Fritz, Mounya Elhilali, Stephen V David and Shihab A Shamma “Auditory attention — focusing the searchlight on sound” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2007, 17:437–455

·        Yamashita T, Fang J, Gao J, Yu Y, Lagarde MM, Zuo J. “Normal hearing sensitivity at low-to-middle frequencies with 34% prestin-charge density.”PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45453. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045453. 

·        Chen F, Zha D, Fridberger A, Zheng J, Choudhury N, Jacques SL, Wang RK, Shi X, Nuttall AL. “A differentially amplified motion in the ear for near-threshold sound detection.” Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun;14(6):770-4. doi: 10.1038/nn.2827

o   Because: “inspires students”, is “ground breaking” This papers describes new methods, and the results question the ancient dogma that hearing sensitivity be dependent upon basilar membrane sensitivity. The results indicate that the prime sensors are the outer hair cells (OHC), not the basilar membrane.

·        May, B. J. (2000). “Role of the dorsal cochlear nucleus in the sound localization behavior of cats. “Hearing research, 148(1), 74-87.          http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00142-8

o   Why important -- interpretation of the data is flawed: A major assumption in sound localization has been that elevation localization and front-back determination relies on monaural spectral processing, and furthermore, that that processing occurs in the dorsal cochlear nucleus (DCN). This study (May2000) has often been cited as 'proving' that major assumption. Perhaps surprisingly, May's experimental results do NOT at all support that conclusion.  The theory for sound localization where it concerns the DCN's output being severed from the IC has certain expected results. However, since the experimental results still show robust elevation localization, that expectation is not met. [One needs only to examine figure 5, column C] What does that mean for a major assumption in sound localization?  

·        Keyrouz, F., & Diepold, K. (2006). “An enhanced binaural 3D sound localization algorithm”. Signal Processing and Information Technology, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 662-665). IEEE.  http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ISSPIT.2006.270883

o   Why important -- shows very accurate binaural localization using a simple method: Although not the first paper to show this approach (Duda1993 for example), it does show an accurate localization method that has biological significance -- all summarized in Fig 2.  Importantly, the method is source spectrum independent and useful with very brief sounds. That is, monaural spectral analysis is not necessary for most locations. The method becomes hugely significance because the HRTFs are not really needed; only the ear signal division for any sound needs to be remembered for a location. 

·       Shera and Guinan (1999) “Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanism: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs”. JASA, 105, 782-798.  DOI  10.1121/1.4763989

o   I appreciate this is outside the time limit of past 10 years (a later version was written for a clinical audience in 2004) but it is a must read for any OAE scholar and represented a shift in how OAE generation was understood.  It is incredibly well written, with the write up of the thought experiment involving demons with their timepieces standing out for me.

·        Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2009). “The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scandinavian journal of psychology”, 50(5), 371–384. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00753.x


I would be very interested in further nominations. I am sure more than 9 people have an opinion...



Dr. Stefan Bleeck
Hearing and Balance Centre
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Room 4093, Tizard building (13)
bleeck@xxxxxxxxx Tel.: 02380 596682