[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cochlea Amplifier models : a new list
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
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!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Larsen" <elarsen@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Cochlea Amplifier models : a new list