Subject: To model or not to model - that is the question ? ... was Re: HC selectivity ... was Re: Physiological models of cochlea activity - alternatives to the travelling wave From: Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:48:01 +1000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Martin and others, Too many neurologists and physiologists find a 'new' part of a cell and think they have found gold. The current gold rush is the ribbon synapse. The process of hearing is a complex multi-disciplinary combination of mechanics, electromagnetics, neurology and physiology. Not any one process acts without being affected by the other. Using one of your publications as an example ... if you will allow me to put words in your mouth : We know that the central processes of hearing are statistically significant [1]. For this reason, the central processes are the process of hearing. Unfortunately ... this proves everything and says nothing ... the significance of your paper makes us look deeper beyond the cochlea - which I agree with ... however almost nothing exists in nature without having reason for existing. The process of turning vibration into a perceived sound takes many many interacting steps. For this reason, the peripheral mechanisms are as significant as the central mechanisms. I am a fan of your research into the central processes of hearing ... however am surprised that you do not like models... I personally don't like non-physiological models of hearing. I can see no other way to explain how we hear other then to use multi-disciplinary physiological models ... Matt [1] @xxxxxxxx{Braun:1997, author = {Braun, M.}, title = {Frequency spacing of multiple spontaneous otoacoustic emissions shows relation to critical bands: a large-scale cumulative study}, journal = {Hearing Research}, year = {1997}, volume = {114}, pages = {197-203}, number = {1-2}, month = {December} } On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:14:28PM +0200, Martin Braun wrote: > Hi Matt and others, > > Our job is not to find mathematical equations that fit our thoughts. Our > job is to look at real biological systems and to try to understand them. > >> I can not see the link between CF-tuned hair cells and cochlea > amplification - currently ... the hair cells need to actuate some form > of mechanical model ... right ? > > No, sorry. Not right. The hair cells need not "actuate" any model that is > in anybody's head. The hair cells are there, and they do their job > successfully. There is a vast amount of literature on hair cell tuning. It > is our job to look at all the data and see what these cells do. It's not > our job to fit some selected data to the models in our heads. > > Just a few papers for a start: > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1193795 > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9265753&ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15102898&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15925861&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16307854&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum > > Martin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Martin Braun > Neuroscience of Music > S-671 95 Klässbol > Sweden > web site: http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm -- http://www.flatmaxstudios.com/ http://www.flatmax.org Public Projects : http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=mffm http://www.psysound.org