Neurophone - Real?? I hope so but am afraid not.
in [Basics]
|
From: Bob Masta on 28 Sep 2006 08:54 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev(a)hotspam.com> wrote: <snip> > >The Neurophone however, is a totally different animal. >I notice that at www.neurophone.com they are talking about ultrasonic >transmission, rather than RF transmission, which I think may be plausible, >though I'm far from an expert on the subject. > It doesn't matter whether it's ultrasound, RF, microwave, magnetic, or electric fields. The problem is not getting a signal into the head, its getting *many* signals into the head in just the right places to represent the frequency content of each auditory channel. Even if you drilled a hole and placed an electrode at any site you chose, and pumped the audio signal in directly, you would just get a series of buzzes in time with the signal peaks. Once again, the auditory system is not even remotely like radio or telephones. The cochlea breaks down the signal into separate frequency components, and each goes to the brain on its own nerve. If you look at the signal on any one of those nerves, it is a spike train where the spikes per second is proportional to the signal *strength*... not frequency. The spike rates are in the low 100s of spikes per second... definitely not adequate to encode anything like audio. If you stuck your electrode or neurophone signal directly into the neuron and applied audio, only the peaks that were large enough to exceed the neuron's threshold would produce spikes. After the neuron fires its spike, it goes into a "refractory period" where it has to recover before it can fire another spike. So, no possible way to send audio over a nerve. All the nerve carries is information about the envelope of its single frequency component, sort of like one column of LEDs on one of those home stereo spectrum displays, where there are different columns of LEDs for each band. It's the full array of thousands of these that make up the experience of hearing. Now since the Neurophone has no way single out individual neurons and send just the right spike rate to each one, the best it can do is fire a whole bunch of neurons together. Think of the task as playing the piano: Normal hearing has way more than 88 "keys", but that will do for an example. To get a melody, you have to press down different keys at different times. But the Neurophone can only press *all* the keys or no keys, it can't single out specific keys at specific times. So lay a board across the piano keys and try hitting it in the center with a hammer. You can convey *information* this way, but not a melody. In the same way, a single-channel stimulation system can not convey speech or music to the brain. Best regards, Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator
From: Mike Rieves on 28 Sep 2006 22:53 "Bob Masta" <NoSpam(a)daqarta.com> wrote in message news:451bc030.1306174(a)news.sysmatrix.net... > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev(a)hotspam.com> > wrote: > > <snip> >> >>The Neurophone however, is a totally different animal. >>I notice that at www.neurophone.com they are talking about ultrasonic >>transmission, rather than RF transmission, which I think may be plausible, >>though I'm far from an expert on the subject. >> > > It doesn't matter whether it's ultrasound, RF, microwave, magnetic, or > electric fields. The problem is not getting a signal into the head, > its getting *many* signals into the head in just the right places to > represent the frequency content of each auditory channel. Even > if you drilled a hole and placed an electrode at any site you chose, > and pumped the audio signal in directly, you would just get a series > of buzzes in time with the signal peaks. > > Once again, the auditory system is not even remotely like radio > or telephones. The cochlea breaks down the signal into separate > frequency components, and each goes to the brain on its own > nerve. If you look at the signal on any one of those nerves, it is > a spike train where the spikes per second is proportional to the > signal *strength*... not frequency. The spike rates are in the > low 100s of spikes per second... definitely not adequate to > encode anything like audio. If you stuck your electrode or > neurophone signal directly into the neuron and applied audio, > only the peaks that were large enough to exceed the neuron's > threshold would produce spikes. After the neuron fires its > spike, it goes into a "refractory period" where it has to recover > before it can fire another spike. So, no possible way to send > audio over a nerve. All the nerve carries is information about > the envelope of its single frequency component, sort of like > one column of LEDs on one of those home stereo spectrum > displays, where there are different columns of LEDs for each > band. It's the full array of thousands of these that make up > the experience of hearing. > > Now since the Neurophone has no way single out individual > neurons and send just the right spike rate to each one, the > best it can do is fire a whole bunch of neurons together. > > Think of the task as playing the piano: Normal hearing has > way more than 88 "keys", but that will do for an example. > To get a melody, you have to press down different keys > at different times. But the Neurophone can only press > *all* the keys or no keys, it can't single out specific keys > at specific times. So lay a board across the piano > keys and try hitting it in the center with a hammer. > You can convey *information* this way, but not a melody. > In the same way, a single-channel stimulation system can > not convey speech or music to the brain. > > Best regards, > > Have you ever actually experimented with one?
From: Bob Masta on 29 Sep 2006 09:08 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:53:06 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev(a)hotspam.com> wrote: > >"Bob Masta" <NoSpam(a)daqarta.com> wrote in message >news:451bc030.1306174(a)news.sysmatrix.net... >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev(a)hotspam.com> >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >>> >>>The Neurophone however, is a totally different animal. >>>I notice that at www.neurophone.com they are talking about ultrasonic >>>transmission, rather than RF transmission, which I think may be plausible, >>>though I'm far from an expert on the subject. >>> >> >> It doesn't matter whether it's ultrasound, RF, microwave, magnetic, or >> electric fields. The problem is not getting a signal into the head, >> its getting *many* signals into the head in just the right places to >> represent the frequency content of each auditory channel. Even >> if you drilled a hole and placed an electrode at any site you chose, >> and pumped the audio signal in directly, you would just get a series >> of buzzes in time with the signal peaks. >> >> Once again, the auditory system is not even remotely like radio >> or telephones. The cochlea breaks down the signal into separate >> frequency components, and each goes to the brain on its own >> nerve. If you look at the signal on any one of those nerves, it is >> a spike train where the spikes per second is proportional to the >> signal *strength*... not frequency. The spike rates are in the >> low 100s of spikes per second... definitely not adequate to >> encode anything like audio. If you stuck your electrode or >> neurophone signal directly into the neuron and applied audio, >> only the peaks that were large enough to exceed the neuron's >> threshold would produce spikes. After the neuron fires its >> spike, it goes into a "refractory period" where it has to recover >> before it can fire another spike. So, no possible way to send >> audio over a nerve. All the nerve carries is information about >> the envelope of its single frequency component, sort of like >> one column of LEDs on one of those home stereo spectrum >> displays, where there are different columns of LEDs for each >> band. It's the full array of thousands of these that make up >> the experience of hearing. >> >> Now since the Neurophone has no way single out individual >> neurons and send just the right spike rate to each one, the >> best it can do is fire a whole bunch of neurons together. >> >> Think of the task as playing the piano: Normal hearing has >> way more than 88 "keys", but that will do for an example. >> To get a melody, you have to press down different keys >> at different times. But the Neurophone can only press >> *all* the keys or no keys, it can't single out specific keys >> at specific times. So lay a board across the piano >> keys and try hitting it in the center with a hammer. >> You can convey *information* this way, but not a melody. >> In the same way, a single-channel stimulation system can >> not convey speech or music to the brain. >> >> Best regards, >> >> > > Have you ever actually experimented with one? No, nor do I feel the need to. Since I have relatively normal hearing, any experiment would not address the question of whether it is stimulating the nerves directly. If I heard anything (which I am not doubting) then it would be due to some electroacoustic effect that produces true mechanical vibration that is picked up by the cochlea and processed by normal hearing mechanisms. Any claims of direct neural stimulation would be pretty hard to prove. Think about the fact that cochlear implants *do* have the ability to deliver a signal very close to the proper target neurons. In fact, they can deliver multiple different signals. Yet they are still a ways away from recreating normal hearing. So why should you believe anecdotal evidence from someone with a vested commerical interest in selling a snake oil product? If the neurophone actually worked on deaf people, why would *anyone* go through the expense (and difficult training period) of getting a cochlear implant? And even assuming that somehow the nerophone "inventor" was a hidden genius, or even if he just got lucky, and made a startling scientific breakthrough, then why would the rest of the true hearing research community not pursue such a breakthrough? Or is this like the old tales of the "genius" with a supposed miracle gas additive, or carburetor, or energy source, that is suppressed by the evil "establishment" scientists? Best regards, Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator
From: Angelo Campanella on 29 Sep 2006 10:49 Bob Masta wrote: >>Have you ever actually experimented with one? > No, nor do I feel the need to. Oh? > Since I have relatively normal > hearing, any experiment would not address the question of > whether it is stimulating the nerves directly. If I heard > anything (which I am not doubting) then it would be due > to some electroacoustic effect that produces true mechanical > vibration that is picked up by the cochlea and processed > by normal hearing mechanisms. Any claims of direct > neural stimulation would be pretty hard to prove. Clearly, if you, as a consequence of some elctrical stimulus, "hear something", then there is room for further investigation. I agree that by now, if there were "paydirt" - an effect that reproduces clear sound sensations - then it would be commonly known. It's a bit careless to say that "it can never be done", since there have historically been many reports of electrically stimulated "hearing" of sound. What is missing in our time is a clear undersanding of the modes by which such stimuli are successful. > Think about the fact that cochlear implants *do* have > the ability to deliver a signal very close to the proper target > neurons. In fact, they can deliver multiple different signals. > Yet they are still a ways away from recreating normal hearing. Agreed. This only points out the center of sensation; the cochlea. Action-at-a-distance is the next step. There will be many pretenders along the way. And it will often be case that their claims will be both hard to prove, and hard to disprove. I presume that we are ready for those challenges... Angelo Campanella
From: Bob Masta on 30 Sep 2006 09:21
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:49:38 GMT, Angelo Campanella <a.campanella(a)att.net> wrote: >Bob Masta wrote: >>>Have you ever actually experimented with one? >> No, nor do I feel the need to. > >Oh? > >> Since I have relatively normal >> hearing, any experiment would not address the question of >> whether it is stimulating the nerves directly. If I heard >> anything (which I am not doubting) then it would be due >> to some electroacoustic effect that produces true mechanical >> vibration that is picked up by the cochlea and processed >> by normal hearing mechanisms. Any claims of direct >> neural stimulation would be pretty hard to prove. > >Clearly, if you, as a consequence of some elctrical stimulus, "hear >something", then there is room for further investigation. > >I agree that by now, if there were "paydirt" - an effect that reproduces >clear sound sensations - then it would be commonly known. It's a bit >careless to say that "it can never be done", since there have >historically been many reports of electrically stimulated "hearing" of >sound. What is missing in our time is a clear undersanding of the modes >by which such stimuli are successful. I think we are on different wavelengths here. I am not concerned about claims that the neurophone can produce the sensation of sound, but I *do* doubt that it does so by direct neural stimulation (such that a person with cochlear deafness could hear anything other than buzzes). Electrophonic hearing effects have been known for at least 100 years; they are not anything new, and they have not proven to be especially useful as anything other than a novelty. Such methods simply produce sound by an unusual mechanism, which is then perceived by the normal hearing mechanism. What is the big advantage here over plain old airborne (or bone-conducted) sound? >> Think about the fact that cochlear implants *do* have >> the ability to deliver a signal very close to the proper target >> neurons. In fact, they can deliver multiple different signals. >> Yet they are still a ways away from recreating normal hearing. > >Agreed. This only points out the center of sensation; the cochlea. >Action-at-a-distance is the next step. The action-at-a-distance aspect may be of some academic interest if there is a previously-unknown mechanism involved, but so far I have seen nothing to recommend it for users. Whatever it is, it is just another sound transducer... and certainly no advantage over good old airborne sound. There are plenty of arcane mechanisms that convert electrical energy into mechanical, such as thermal effects, but that doesn't mean they are improvements. >There will be many pretenders along the way. > >And it will often be case that their claims will be both hard to prove, >and hard to disprove. > >I presume that we are ready for those challenges... > Of course, it is up to the claimant to offer evidence for his claims. If the purveyors of neurophones, free energey machines, homeopathy, "intelligent design", or what-have-you were serious about being accepted by science, they would offer more than anecdotal evidence. And as will all claims in science, they would have to be prepared for open criticism. Only when they have run the gauntlet that everything else has to run can they expect to be accepted. Best regards, Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator |