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

[Erik Larsen <elarsen@xxxxxxx>]

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.

Models can be useful even if they do not incorporate All Relevant Data. 
It depends on what you use your model for. A lot of optics can be done 
assuming a wave model of electromagnetic radiation, and its a very 
useful model. Your optometrist doesn't need to incorporate particle-like 
aspects of photons to prescribe a pair of lenses.

Erik

Ramdas Kumaresan wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Braun" <nombraun@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: HC selectivity ... was Re: Physiological models of 
> cochlea activity - alternatives to the travelling wave
>
>
>
> > I understand the quoted part from the Wikipedia article "Scientific 
> > Modeling" without any mathematical formulae, even though I have not 
> > written it and even though I do not even know who has written it.
>
> > You need meta-knowledge to be able to asses if a model is correct and 
> > useful. In science this meta-knowledge is: All Relevant Data.
>
> > For example, because a wealth of data proves that the basilar 
> > membrane BM) in the mammalian cochlea does not respond to sound 
> > levels below about 60 dB, once the outer hairs cells (OHC) have been 
> > made temporally or ultimately non-functional,
>
> Is this statement true? I have heard that there is a travelling wave 
> on the BM?
> No travelling wave below 60 dB SPL?

--
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