Subject: Latin lady provides actuality From: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:42:35 +0100Jont, I made some homework at http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M50.html. I would like to ask you for putting it on http://auditorymodels.org for critical review. The topic is: How are CB and asymmetry of masking fundamentally related to the OHCs? I feel we should not kill the power of fancy. However, aren't we sometimes perverse? Cochlea is female in Latin language. What language did she understand during evolution? Certainly, the alleged ability of the brain 'to make full reconstruction' did not matter. What about frequency analysis, I see the Latin lady mainly performing gradual forgetting. Well, this makes sense. It exactly meets Dan's demand even if the time window is rather small. More recent data, alias higher frequencies, are presumably more important than the past. What about information theory, I feel it is nice but still imperfect in that it does not pay attention to aging of the data. I wonder if nobody dealt with this weak point. Strictly speaking, actuality is a more correct aspect than age. In vision, there is similar gradual decline of relevance with deviation from focus. I did not forget the starting question whether or not it is a disaster that half of information is lost. This might be a serious mistake. Well, my home tries to unite those who are unhappy with traditional theory. Nonetheless, we must not claim to be already right altogether. I would like to check all ideas first. You wrote: 'Limited dynamic range shows up as masking.' That is interesting and reminds me a little bit of Zwicker's equivalence of psychoacoustical tuning curves and masking pattern. Did you make a quantitative proof? Admittedly, it will be difficult to understandably express what I am meaning with perverse while doing my best not to insult anybody. Many if not all of us are obviously not completely aware of their roots. If we are getting aware that we learned unjustified theory, we have to look for compelling genuine miracles. I guess, in hearing, there are still a plenty of paradoxes to be explained. Excuse me, I reckon those perverse who are in vain trying to teach the Latin lady their poor, in mathematical terms, English . We are trained to think almost like a von-Neumann machine. So we are badly prepared to understand how ensembles of neurons manage to seemingly contradict and outperform theory. I wonder if someone has a hint to elementary rules how evolutionary structures of signal processing work. Some of them are called contra-intuitive. They do not need zero-crossing, peak-detection or whatever in order to temporally process information, and they are very robust against noise, partial damage and other adverse conditions. Eckard