🚀 go-pugleaf

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!




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

Radium wrote:
> The above pseudohallucination is no surpise to me and not at all
> fascinating.

Your degree of un-surprise is impresssive.

Google meucci+telephone+havana

for some interesting experiments on electrotherapy that also produced 
sounds.

Angelo Campanella

Bob Masta wrote:
> 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.

At the U. of Rochester around 1980, Rick Razdan (later founded ISCAN)
and I played with a crude Neurophone down in the basement of the vision
psych department.  A Wavetek signal generator fed a rack-mount power
op-amp, which fed a few turns wrapped around a TV flyback transformer
with floating secondary.   The electrodes were copper screen embedded
between thin plexiglas with silicone caulk.  Tune the generator to the
flyback's resonance, then either switch on the Wavetek's internal 1KHz
modulator, or pipe some audio into the VCG connector.

It worked!   With the electrodes clamped to our heads, we could hear
very clear sound.  But I noticed while clamping the electrode plates to
my arm, I could hear the sound coming from the electrodes.   By simply
touching my fingertips gently to one of the plates, I could hear the
sound coming from my fingertips.  We turned out the lights and saw a
purple glow surrounding our fingertips in contact with the plastic.

So the Neurophone is actually a "Kirlian Photography" setup!   It's
also a "plasma tweeter," since it creates a glow discharge, then
creates sound by modulating the amount of wattage feeding that plasma.

No doubt the device was injecting plenty of sound directly into the
tissues in contact with the electrodes, so the sound would travel
around inside.  However, I could NOT hear any sound when I clamped the
device to my arm and then plugged my ears.  If our amp had far more
power, perhaps I could have heard the flesh-conducted sound injected
into my arm and travelling up my neck to my ears..

When wearing the electrode plates on our ears, I suppose that the sound
mostly came from the contact point between our ear tissues and the
plastic.   It behaved somewhat unexpectedly, since most of the sound
was apparently being injected into the flesh of our outer ears, then
travelling internally to our eardrums or perhaps directly to the
cochlea, rather than travelling through the air path.  No matter how
the plates were positioned, the sound seemed to be coming from the same
direction.  By touching the plate to any part of our ears, we heard the
same clear loud audio signal.  Flesh conduction is weird.  Underwater
noises, with your body being the "water."

But best of all, we got to watch each other with 30,000V electrodes
strapped to our heads!


((((((((((((((((((((((( (  (    (o)    )  ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty              http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
Research Engineer             UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
beaty@chemwashingtonedu     Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph:206-543-6195 fax:206-685-8665

"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. 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:06:00 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com>
wrote:

>

>>
>  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. 
>

That Lucille Ball story has also been pretty roundly criticized, and 
there isn't a shred of documentation in support of it.  (She was
supposed to have intercepted code from a Japanese spy transmitter,
leading to the arrest of the spy.  But no records of that arrest have 
ever been found.)

I believe all the "dental radio" stories are in the "urban legend"
category.  At least, I have never been able to validate one.
It's always something we've just "heard about" (so to speak!).

There are several reasons why dental radio is unlikely, not the
least of which is that the supposed "diode" from the fillings is
without an antenna, in an enclosure made of a pretty good
conductor (saltwater, basically).  So the best you could possibly
hope for would be a few microvolts *in your tooth*.  Now, even
assuming this signal could get the nerve beneath it to fire,
and even considering that some of those nerves may leak
signals into the auditory nerve, you'd still be left with the
single-channel problem:  The best you could *possibly* hope
for would be a string of buzzes.

On the other hand, it is much more plausible that these cases
(if any real ones exist) are auditory hallucinations, possibly
stimulated by real acoustic noise from TMJ (tempro-mandibular
joint) problems, or slightly occluded blood vessels.  Or even
stimulated by tinnitus, which may or may not be acoustic but
in some people can be a broadband effect unlike the more
usual "riinging in the ears".  Broadband noise can definitely
produce "radio station" illusions under the proper conditions,
and I hope to write a paper decribing this in detail in the near
future.

Best regards,


by 




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

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message 
news:451a82e6.5657506@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:06:00 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>>  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.
>>
>
> That Lucille Ball story has also been pretty roundly criticized, and
> there isn't a shred of documentation in support of it.  (She was
> supposed to have intercepted code from a Japanese spy transmitter,
> leading to the arrest of the spy.  But no records of that arrest have
> ever been found.)

 It's remotely possible that the arrest was kept confidential for security 
reasons, however I agree that the story is highly unlikely to have been 
true. The TV show "Mythbusters" took this one on in episode 4, the result: 
myth busted!

> I believe all the "dental radio" stories are in the "urban legend"
> category.  At least, I have never been able to validate one.
> It's always something we've just "heard about" (so to speak!).

I agree.

> There are several reasons why dental radio is unlikely, not the
> least of which is that the supposed "diode" from the fillings is
> without an antenna, in an enclosure made of a pretty good
> conductor (saltwater, basically).  So the best you could possibly
> hope for would be a few microvolts *in your tooth*.  Now, even
> assuming this signal could get the nerve beneath it to fire,
> and even considering that some of those nerves may leak
> signals into the auditory nerve, you'd still be left with the
> single-channel problem:  The best you could *possibly* hope
> for would be a string of buzzes.
>
> On the other hand, it is much more plausible that these cases
> (if any real ones exist) are auditory hallucinations, possibly
> stimulated by real acoustic noise from TMJ (tempro-mandibular
> joint) problems, or slightly occluded blood vessels.  Or even
> stimulated by tinnitus, which may or may not be acoustic but
> in some people can be a broadband effect unlike the more
> usual "riinging in the ears".  Broadband noise can definitely
> produce "radio station" illusions under the proper conditions,
> and I hope to write a paper decribing this in detail in the near
> future.

   I agree here too. 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. 

In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:

> snip.....snip

> I'm far from an expert on the subject.

You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on dBs going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on Doppler distortion?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:06:45 -0700, Radium wrote:

> 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.

It should be trivially simple to test this - just get some deaf
volunteers, and try it!

Good Luck!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:06:45 -0700, Radium wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It should be trivially simple to test this - just get some deaf
> volunteers, and try it!
>
> Good Luck!
> Rich

Exactly! What makes me skeptical about Neurophone is it is not used on
deaf volunteers. Makes me think that the Neurophone is too good to be
true. Yet I still find it so interesting.

Gary Sokolich wrote:
> In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:
> 
>> snip.....snip
> 
>> I'm far from an expert on the subject.
> 
> You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on dBs going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on Doppler distortion?

Ah, after recently being scrubbed by Easynews and then Supernews for
abuse (possibly Google as well), Gary Sokolich finally found an
anonymous remailer, dizum.com, to continue his "anynomous" stalking
with what he believes to be impunity.

Amazing the ingenuity of the criminally psychopathic mind.

There is recourse for victims, however, at

 https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html



Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

                                             A. Einstein

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@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

On 9/27/06 11:30 PM, in article
t9ydnRaNKIKD8YbYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Bob Cain"
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> Gary Sokolich wrote:
>> In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
>> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> snip.....snip
>> 
>>> I'm far from an expert on the subject.
>> 
>> You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on dBs
>> going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on Doppler
>> distortion?
> 
> Ah, after recently being scrubbed by Easynews and then Supernews for
> abuse (possibly Google as well), Gary Sokolich finally found an
> anonymous remailer, dizum.com, to continue his "anynomous" stalking
> with what he believes to be impunity.
> 
> Amazing the ingenuity of the criminally psychopathic mind.
> 
> There is recourse for victims, however, at
> 
> https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html
> 
> 
> 
> Bob

Well Bob, you really didn't need to post this to sci.electronics.basics.
Doing it makes you appear as a pile of excrement.

Please go away.

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in
news:C1419FE4.451CE%dbowey@comcast.net: 

> On 9/27/06 11:30 PM, in article
> t9ydnRaNKIKD8YbYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Bob Cain"
> <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> 
>> Gary Sokolich wrote:
>>> In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
>>> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> snip.....snip
>>> 
>>>> I'm far from an expert on the subject.
>>> 
>>> You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on
>>> dBs going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on
>>> Doppler distortion?
>> 
>> Ah, after recently being scrubbed by Easynews and then Supernews for
>> abuse (possibly Google as well), Gary Sokolich finally found an
>> anonymous remailer, dizum.com, to continue his "anynomous" stalking
>> with what he believes to be impunity.
>> 
>> Amazing the ingenuity of the criminally psychopathic mind.
>> 
>> There is recourse for victims, however, at
>> 
>> https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bob
> 
> Well Bob, you really didn't need to post this to
> sci.electronics.basics. Doing it makes you appear as a pile of
> excrement. 
> 
> Please go away.


Please excuse the intrusion, but, under the circumstances, I feel compelled 
to set the record straight.


Bob Cain IS a pile of excrement who has been stalking and harassing me on 
the internet for the past six years.  For whatever reason, Bob Cain lacks 
the ability to recognize the fact that he routinely engages in the very 
behavior that he attributes to others. A quick Google Groups search using 
Bob Cain as author and Sokolich as either the subject or in the message 
body will clearly reveal the fact that Bob Cain is the true stalker and 
that he is the one with the criminally psychopathic mind.  In this regard 
it is noteworthy that Bob Cain has recently gone so far as to utilize 
forged headers to impersonate me on several occasions in several 
newsgroups.  Bob Cain is one very sick, twisted and pathetic individual who 
in need of serious psychiactric help.  



 

 


     

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message 
news:t9ydnRaNKIKD8YbYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Gary Sokolich wrote:
>> In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
>> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> snip.....snip
>>
>>> I'm far from an expert on the subject.
>>
>> You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on dBs 
>> going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on Doppler 
>> distortion?
>
> Ah, after recently being scrubbed by Easynews and then Supernews for
> abuse (possibly Google as well), Gary Sokolich finally found an
> anonymous remailer, dizum.com, to continue his "anynomous" stalking
> with what he believes to be impunity.
>
> Amazing the ingenuity of the criminally psychopathic mind.
>
> There is recourse for victims, however, at
>
> https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html
>
>
>
> Bob
> -- 
>
   My ISP automatically blocks everything Gary sends, so I never see his 
posts unless they're quoted when someone replies to him. I strongly suggest 
that everyone simply ignore his ravings, then maybe he'll eventually get 
tired of talking to himself and go away. Unfortunately, once in a while he 
does post something relevant to the subject, and I miss those posts as well, 
but I feel it's worth it to avoid all the garbage. 

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message 
news:451bc030.1306174@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@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? 

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:53:06 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message 
>news:451bc030.1306174@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:10:28 -0500, "Mike Rieves" <mriev@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

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

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in
news:MO%Sg.25852$eW5.21906@bignews5.bellsouth.net: 

> 
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message 
> news:t9ydnRaNKIKD8YbYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Gary Sokolich wrote:
>>> In article <88zSg.25487$eW5.18936@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
>>> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> snip.....snip
>>>
>>>> I'm far from an expert on the subject.
>>>
>>> You're far from an expert on any subject.  BTW, how's your course on
>>> dBs going.  Also, when do you expect to finish your treatise on
>>> Doppler distortion?
>>
>> Ah, after recently being scrubbed by Easynews and then Supernews for
>> abuse (possibly Google as well), Gary Sokolich finally found an
>> anonymous remailer, dizum.com, to continue his "anynomous" stalking
>> with what he believes to be impunity.
>>
>> Amazing the ingenuity of the criminally psychopathic mind.
>>
>> There is recourse for victims, however, at
>>
>> https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>> -- 
>>
>    My ISP automatically blocks everything Gary sends, so I never see
>    his 
> posts unless they're quoted when someone replies to him. I strongly
> suggest that everyone simply ignore his ravings, then maybe he'll
> eventually get tired of talking to himself and go away. Unfortunately,
> once in a while he does post something relevant to the subject, and I
> miss those posts as well, but I feel it's worth it to avoid all the
> garbage. 


As usual, you are full of your own pig shit.  Your ISP can't block me 
because my IP address is not fixed, because I utilize numerous news 
providers and because I also post using multiple anonymous remailers.  

Your reputation as a liar and technical ignoramus is well known and has 
been documented at: 

http://www.azwebpages.com/porky.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.home-
studio/msg/50d79b86a6e3d408?dmode=source&hl=en

Lastly, you post your idiotic drivel and defamitory lies about me as if 
they represent an unbased opinion. The fact of the matter is that you have 
your pig snout so far embedded up Bob Cain's butt crack that you have 
lapsed into a state of delusional unconciousness.  Anyone who is inclined 
to believe otherwise should simply do a Google search on the thread "Bob 
Cain goes down and out in defeat," which I initiated under the nym "The 
Ghost."

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:49:38 GMT, Angelo Campanella
<a.campanella@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