Talk:Cochlea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have just added a bit more detail, but unfortunately I seem to have messed up the links to the organ of corti page and cant get it right - can anyone help? Povmcdov 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
fixed it myself now, I didn't realise links were case sensitive! Povmcdov 19:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Have just added formatting and I intend to expand this article significantly - anybody else want to help? I will complet frequency discrimination within 12 hours hopefully, but feel free to add and edit (as always!) Povmcdov 20:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there any man made device which separates frequencies? The monochromator and the electronic filter look so totally different. --Arnero 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the spectrum analyzer is a tool used in electronics to do so. And the Fast Fourier Transform (its a computer algorithm, but I guress it's a manmade device)--mcrema
The spectrum analyzer - according to its page - can only "hear" one frequency at a time. The Fourier Transform requires multiple, discrete steps, but there is only one cochlea and only this single mechanic channel connects the different frequency regions. It seems that no wave effects take place.
>> tuned to certain sound frequencies,
Mechanically or chemi-mechanically? --Arnero 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- In my experience a spectrum analyzer can measure energy over a wide range of frequencies. It only measures one frequency (actually one small frequency band) at any instant, but it sweeps across the specturm of interest very rapidly, so the eye cannot tell the difference. Perhaps this is not true for all models. The cochlea is often (qualitatively) compared to a specturm analyzer in hearing texts (if this is what you were getting at with your question), and it would be appropriate to make this comparison on the cochlea page.
- Your observation of "no wave effects" leads some interesting (current) confusion. At first, the operation of the cochlea was thought to be resonance (by Helmholtz). This position was re-evaluated (by Bekesy) and for many years the effect was thought to be the so-called "traveling wave". Recently the resonance theory has resurfaced (Zwislocki) but you still see it described both ways. For the purposes of a brief introduction such as this article, either description is probably fine.
- A good "quick" review of place-theory can be found in the first few pages of this document
- http://www.utdallas.edu/~loizou/cimplants/tutorial/
- A more detailed but excellent review can be found here:
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1464757&dopt=Abstract
- I can recommend others if you like.--mcrema 22 February 2006
- PS. Clearly, another man made device which separates frequencies is the cochlear implant.
[edit] Moving content here
Unless there are any objections, there's some content at Inner ear which I think would better belong on the cochlea page. --Arcadian 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The semicircular canals are part of the Inner Ear but not part of the cochlea.--mcrema 22 February 2006
[edit] References
I removed a recent ref and speculation because it appears to be someone promoting their own recent narrow work. I added a sources tag because we really need to make a reference section and reference the various claimed facts. If someone was to work on this, their contributions of recent narrow stuff might also be viewed in a different light. Dicklyon 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Too technical?
I think the scientific terminology is a bit overused here. I (college undergrad, engineering) could read the article and just about understand it, but only with the mouse in one hand and Websters in the other, particularly of issue was the technically correct, but non-vernacular use of "superior" and "inferior". I might have a go myself tomorrow. Tiggythegreat (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)