Reply to “Comment on ‘An approximate transfer function for the dual-resonance nonlinear filter model of auditory frequency selectivity’ ” (L)

2004 ◽  
Vol 115 (5) ◽  
pp. 1891-1891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Nonlinear Filter ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Filter Model ◽  
Dual Resonance

Simple Triangular Approximations of Auditory Filter Shapes

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 530-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Formby
Keyword(s):  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Qualitative Properties ◽  
Shape Model ◽  
Filter Model ◽  
Auditory Filter ◽  
Simplified Method ◽  
Clinical Measurements ◽  
High Sound

At present, the most popular auditory filter shape model is one with a rounded peak and exponentially decaying filter skirts (Patterson & Moore, 1986). Unfortunately, the complex nature of this “roex” filter model may, in some instances, have hindered the application of the auditory filter shape in clinical measurements of frequency selectivity. Moreover, some of the assumptions of the roex filter model may be violated at high sound-pressure levels (SPLs) and this limitation has also been a factor when considering the roex auditory filter shape in the clinic. Our purpose is to introduce a simplified method that is adequate for obtaining clinically useful estimates of triangular-shaped auditory filters. Although the triangular-shaped filter model faces the same problems as the roex model at high SPLs, the calculations and assumptions underlying the former are far less complicated. The triangular filter model also retains many of the qualitative properties and advantages afforded by roex-fitted auditory filter shapes. In this report, we review the basic concepts underlying auditory filter shape estimates and describe our methods for measuring and fitting the triangular-shaped filter model. We then present normative triangular filter shapes and compare these estimates with auditory filter shapes fitted by other means. Finally, we present selected examples of triangular filter shapes fitted to the masked thresholds of hearing-impaired patients. For the most part, the triangular-shaped filter model offers the clinician a satisfactory compromise for obtaining estimates of auditory filter shape and frequency selectivity at moderately intense and high SPLs.

The receptive field of the primate P retinal ganglion cell, I: Linear dynamics

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan A. Benardete ◽  
Ehud Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Cell Dynamics ◽  
Early Form ◽  
Filter Model ◽  
First Order ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Classes ◽  
Spatial Transfer Function

AbstractThe ganglion cells of the primate retina include two major anatomical and functional classes: P cells which project to the four parvocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), and M cells which project to the two magnocellular layers. The characteristics of the P-cell receptive field are central to understanding early form and color vision processing (Kaplan et al., 1990; Schiller & Logothetis, 1990). In this and in the following paper, P-cell dynamics are systematically analyzed in terms of linear and nonlinear response properties. Stimuli that favor either the center or the surround of the receptive field were produced on a CRT and modulated with a broadband signal composed of multiple m-sequences (Benardete et al., 1992b; Benardete & Victor, 1994). The first-order responses were calculated and analyzed in this paper (part I). The findings are: (1) The first-order responses of the center and surround depend linearly on contrast. (2) The dynamics of the center and surround are well described by a bandpass filter model. The most significant difference between center and surround dynamics is a delay of approximately 8 ms in the surround response. (3) In the LGN, these responses are attenuated and delayed by an additional 1–5 ms. (4) The spatial transfer function of the P cell in response to drifting sine gratings at three temporal frequencies was measured. This independent method confirmed the delay between the (first-order) responses of the center and surround. This delay accounts for the dependence of the spatial transfer function on the frequency of stimulation.

Radiation Damage of Support Films

1981 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 28-29
Author(s):  
H.A. Cohen ◽  
W. Chiu
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Low Temperatures ◽  
Carbon Support ◽  
Contrast Transfer Function ◽  
Electron Dose ◽  
Imaging Parameters ◽  
Negative Stain ◽  
Phase Corrections ◽  
Two Parameters ◽  
Medium Dose

The goal of imaging the finest detail possible in biological specimens leads to contradictory requirements for the choice of an electron dose. The dose should be as low as possible to minimize object damage, yet as high as possible to optimize image statistics. For specimens that are protected by low temperatures or for which the low resolution associated with negative stain is acceptable, the first condition may be partially relaxed, allowing the use of (for example) 6 to 10 e/Å2. However, this medium dose is marginal for obtaining the contrast transfer function (CTF) of the microscope, which is necessary to allow phase corrections to the image. We have explored two parameters that affect the CTF under medium dose conditions.Figure 1 displays the CTF for carbon (C, row 1) and triafol plus carbon (T+C, row 2). For any column, the images to which the CTF correspond were from a carbon covered hole (C) and the adjacent triafol plus carbon support film (T+C), both recorded on the same micrograph; therefore the imaging parameters of defocus, illumination angle, and electron statistics were identical.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document