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

comparing cochlear models ?

Dear Emad,
The only criterion that makes sense to me is that a cochlear model should replicate well-known psychoacoustic experiments without having to apply "special adjustments" for each experiment. For example, the two-tone interference experiments such as missing fundamental, combination tones, masking, etc. should all be explainable by the same model. Likewise for many other phenomena, such as rippled noise, whispered speech, real-time pitch detection, or detection of tones without periodic repetition, not requiring exotic computations. Furthermore, the model should be capable of separating sounds in terms of awareness and attention.   
As far as I know, no current models can come anywhere close to doing even one of these things. So you have an open field to pursue. 
Here's a hint: Helmholtz was wrong, Seebeck was right.
Best regards,
John Bates
----- Original Message -----
From: emad burke
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:04 AM
Subject: comparing cochlear models ?

Dear list

I am trying to find a metric which i can compare different cochlear models based on. in other words i need a "quantitative" metric which there is a consensus on in the whole community and its widely accepted. Of course i dont mean a metric like "how biologically plausible a cochlear model is" since i dont think it is quantifiable. as a simple example if you were going to compare the traditional Dick Lyons old cochlear model with the one that i'm developing myself how am i supposed to compare them and conclude which ones superior ?

Best Regards