Re: Gold & Pumphrey (Experiment I) (Dan Ellis )

Subject: Re: Gold & Pumphrey (Experiment I)
From:    Dan Ellis  <dpwe(at)EE.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Date:    Sat, 18 May 2002 10:33:10 -0400

>> This proviso rules out most frequencies in a normal cochlea since there is >> almost always some threshold microstructure and often pronounced >> microstructure of up to 15 dB changes within 1/2 critical band. This is an interesting twist, new to me. I'd like to know more details. Presumably it would be OK if the tests were done with the most sensitive frequency in the locality - if that can be easily established for a particular listener - since then we can be confident that the sidelobes are below threshold. But, depending on the fineness of the microstructure, doesn't microstructure in itself imply high-Q? If frequencies close to one another are being processed differently (i.e. with different sensors exhibiting different thresholds), then the individual sensor structures (mechanical and neural) must be finely enough tuned to separate these close frequencies, implying high-Q. Half a critical band wouldn't give you a Q of 300, but the details might be telling. -- DAn Ellis <dpwe(at)> Dept. of Elec. Eng., Columbia Univ., New York NY 10027 (212) 854-8928

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