[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thanks Michael for your note rec'd on Mon 4/11
I have no argument with your comments regarding my email. However, I do go back along time
in the pursuit of understanding how sound is processed by animal receptors. I first dug into the
Bekesy models when visiting him at Harvard in 1947. In 1948 I was among the first to observe
OAE's while testing earphone behavior on live human subjects. I really do appreciate the need
to focus down to details in modeling parts of the receptor systems.
The major point in my concerns is that we need to consider what are the objectives of the receptors
that deliver meaningful input to a human. At least some of the still obscure aspects of the receptors
require attention to subtleties that have not yet been incorporated in the models.
An example is in the note I sent to the list regarding the Torres paper (which is attached) It deals
with improvements of resonance response by the effects of noise processes. My point in such
comments is that it will improve models if some of these still subtle effects are included in
examining all the functions to be performed by the peripheral apparatus. I am still often amazed
by the extraordinary refinement of biological components shown by Natures developments.
I quite agree that all the steps in the right direction need be taken. Hopefully funds can be found to
support some of these possibly more complex but none the less also significant other processes
that go on in that exquisitely effective and complex equipment Nature has produced. I admire your work
to such ends and will continue to follow it. Please consider my comments to be supportive and not in the
least critical. I think that researchers should try to be aware of surrounding developments even though
afield, that may have bearing on the pursuit of still limited modeling concepts.
Torres_etal_Can intrinsic noise induce...1104.1202.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document