Re: Wasn't v. Helmholtz right? ("Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda" )

Subject: Re: Wasn't v. Helmholtz right?
From:    "Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda"  <ealopez(at)MED-AB.UCLM.ES>
Date:    Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:29:45 +0200

Dear Andrew and List, Like Ben Hornsby, I have been following your discussion very closely. I have also read your paper. I think your model is an excellent piece of work that leads to many questions that are worth exploring. There is one thing, however, that I don't understand. If BM motion is not the direct "cause" of IHC excitation, how do you explain, for instance, the relationship described by Shyamla Narayan, S., Temchin, AN, Recio, A, and Ruggero, MA [Science 282: 1882-1884] between frequency tuning of BM and auditory nerve fibres in the same cochleae? The relationship occurs at threshold and is almost perfect particularly at the tip of the tuning curve where, according to your model, BM plays the "least" important of its roles. -- Enrique ________________________________________________________________ Dr. Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda Profesor Asociado de Bases F=EDsicas de la Medicina Facultad de Medicina Tel. +34-967599200 ext.2749 Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha Fax. +34-967599272 / 04 Campus Universitario 02071 Albacete -- Spain ________________________________________________________________

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University