Subject: Re: Cochlea Amplifier models : a new list From: Martin Braun <nombraun@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:55:34 +0200 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Erik Larsen wrote: > The data in that figure (nerve response as a function of stimulus level, > Fig. 7B) can be taken to suggest any number of things. This is an unscientific way of talking. > Your interpretation is one possibility, but I could give you several > others. For example, as sound level goes up, the fiber's response area > broadens, especially towards lower frequencies. This is not relevant, because rate level peaks are clearly discernible. > This would be entirely consistent with the BM tuning dependence on level, > combined with a saturating response of the fiber. The fact that at 100 dB > only (not 90 dB) there appear to be two best frequencies could be > attributed entirely to the stochastic nature of the fiber response, i.e. > at 5.5 kHz the response just happens to be a bit low (only 10% below > maximum). There are no error bars so it is not clear whether this is a > real dip in the response or not. My interpretation isn't any better or > worse than yours if neither of us can offer a stochastic model of the > fiber response that explains this data. Its all to easy to find features > you are looking for, otherwise. A "stochastic model of the fiber response" is not needed. The rate count figures are so high that their significance need not be tested by further mathematics. > > Another problem is that this data is from the 6 kHz CF place - I assume > this is not in the basal turn for squirrel monkey so we really do not know > the BM mechanics at that point. The 6 kHz CF place of the squirrel monkey corresponds to the 3 kHz CF place in humans. Also these things are in the literature! Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Larsen" <elarsen@xxxxxxxx> To: <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Cochlea Amplifier models : a new list