🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message 
news:45192992.3772086@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On 25 Sep 2006 22:06:45 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>I have read about the neurophone which claims to produce auditory
>>perception through nerve stimulation. Something to do with electric
>>signals of certain frequencies being sensed as sound by the brain.
>>
>>Science proves that temporal bone vibration can be used to cause
>>auditory pseudohallucinations.
>>
>>Check out: http://www.priory.com/halluc.htm#pseudo
>>
>>"Radio-reception. A 35 year old Vietnam combat, veteran (32) started
>>to complain of depression, headaches, and hearing blurred voices and
>>music. Skull X-rays showed shrapnel metallic densities in the soft
>>tissues and cranial bones of the left parieto-occipital region. His
>>perception of voices and music were matched with stations in the AM
>>broadcast band, and consistently identified the same station in the
>>560 Khz range. His radio- reception involved the metal implant diode
>>rectification of the radio signal, and its bone transmission to the
>>auditory apparatus. Other cases of broadcast reception due to dental
>>work have been reported as well."
>>
>>The above pseudohallucination is no surpise to me and not at all
>>fascinating.
>
>>Cochlear implants stimulate the peripheral auditory nerve-endings in
>>the cochlea. Electric signals excite these nerve endings. The
>>neurophone is said to work differently -- by using electric signals on
>>any nerve in the body. At a specific frequency this is supposed to
>>stimulate the auditory cortex of the brain. This, according to
>>Flantech, causes a perception of sound. Isn't this too good to be true,
>>given the state of today's technology?
>>
>>Links about neurophone:
>>
>>1. http://www.neurophone.com/home.htm
>>
>>2. http://www.worldtrans.org/spir/neuro.html
>>
>
> Thanks for these links.  This is a fascinating area for
> me, since I spent most of my professional career in
> hearing research.  But I think the neurophone is
> really pseudo-science.  Here's why:
>
> Hearing is a *parallel channel* system.  Each
> individual frequency that we can resolve is
> sent from the cochlea on its own individual nerve.
> There is a very narrow band of frequencies that
> each nerve will respond to at peak sensitivity,
> though the band widens out with louder sounds.
>
> Nevertheless, the frequency discrimination is all
> done in the cochlea, by electro-mechanical means.
> By the time a sound is turned into nerve impulses,
> you have to look at the whole array of nerves to
> get a picture of the spectrum of the sound.
>
> A single electrode placed anywhere after the cochlea
> can not provide the sensation of frequency, except
> in the crudest sense.  You'd only perceive the *envelope*
> of the sound, and you'd think that it was at a frequency
> corresponding to whatever nerve was stimulated.
> (There are several thousand nerves from the cochlea
> to handle full range of frequencies we perceive.)
>
> So a gross single electrode is going to sound like
> "BUZZbuzzbuzzBUZZbuzBUZZBUZZbuzzbuzz"
> That's what patients of the earliest cochlear implants
> heard... crude, but a heck of a lot better than nothing.
> And it turned out it corresponded well with vowel sounds,
> which are hard to pick up from lip-reading, so that a
> patient with one of these who could also see the lips
> of a speaker could read lips *much* better.  But it was
> hopelss for telephone use, for example.
>
> The newer multi-electrode designs can stimulate several
> frequency bands at once.  (Even though there are 22
> or more electrodes, you get maybe 8 effective ones after
> the initial testing.)  Many patients can indeed learn to use
> the telephone after practice, but music is pretty lame.
>
> So what's going on with the neurophone?  I am dubious
> that it has really helped any patient with cochlear ("nerve")
> deafness, except as a crude lip-reading aid.  There is
> simply no way to encode frequency individually to all
> of the thousands of nerves... or even to 2 of them!
>
> However, there are some "electrophonic" effects that
> have been known as curiosities for about 100 years.
> By proper voltage application to tissue, you can actually
> make the tissue vibrate, creating regular old acoustic
> sound which can then be heard by a normal ear.
>
> I have experimented with this, and it's pretty fiddly.
> But anyone who wants to can try this:  Get a good
> bench-type osciallator that can drive a 50 ohm load.
> (Not sure how important that is, but it worked for me.)
> Bend up a paper clip and clamp it under the binding
> post of the hot lead of the output, so the wire is
> dangling in the air, sorta springy.  Then set the level
> to maybe 10 V or so at frequencies in the 1k-4k
> range and *gently* stroke the wire with your fingertip
> in a very quiet room. You may or may not want to
> touch the ground post at the same time.  This whole
> thing was so unpredictable that I never pursued it
> farther (nor, apparently, did anyone else!), but it
> *did* produce occasional faint sound, and yes, it
> could be heard by skeptical witnesses.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
  I remember seeing this thing on the TV program "I've Got a Secret" in the 
late fifties or early sixties. (I saw a rerun of that show on the Game 
networt a couple of years ago). I remember there were arguments in the press 
at the time as to where it was really transmitting via RF or merely audio 
transmitted by bone conduction. As best I remember, there were well-known 
experts on both sides of the argument.
  Also, Lucille Ball claimed to have heard a picked up a radio broadcast on 
a filling while passing by a station after a visit from her dentist.