Is what mentioned in this paper real?

[mhardy6647]

tambour

 

[Galliardist]

Actually, the frequencies mentioned in this paper match those referred to in a Japanese paper I read, where the result was that the ultrasonic frequencies from normal instruments were not heard or felt, but there was something about the Javanese gamelan providing some stimulation.
I'd have to look it up.
I don't understand why it would help with tinnitus though. On the other hand I've yet to find a really good description of how we process normal sound waves, and that would seem to be basic research that surely must be in someone's collection here?

 

[Holmz]

Do we process waves of sound, or time domain of sound?

 

[Galliardist]

Do we process waves of sound, or time domain of sound?

Based on piecemeal knowledge and reading some isolated papers posted on audio forums, I would venture that the answer to this question is "yes".

 

[krabapple]

What do you mean? Is this Lenhardt's suggestion or yours?

It's right there in Lenhardt' s paper. He cites Maass's work from 1946 in the sentence just before the one I quoted:

In one of the earliest reports [4], the experimental work of Dr. Roger Maass performed in 1946 was cited. Maass, never credited again for his original discovery , made all the essential observations in regard to ultrasonic hearing phenomenology . Ultrasonic hearing was possible in humans but only by bone conduction.

 

[krabapple]

The contents of the paper referred to by the OP are not plausible.

Says who?

The paper is about "Ultrasonic Hearing in Humans: Applications for Tinnitus Treatment". It's a literature review. It has f-a to do with the home audio reproduction, the nominal topic of this forum, or the way we listen to audio from our system.

 

[krabapple]

Actually, the frequencies mentioned in this paper match those referred to in a Japanese paper I read, where the result was that the ultrasonic frequencies from normal instruments were not heard or felt, but there was something about the Javanese gamelan providing some stimulation.
I'd have to look it up.

Better yet, you'd have to relate their method to actual normal listening. Those various Japanese papers tended to use methods that were rather, um, contrived.

Lenhardt was writing about *bone conduction* btw.

I don't understand why it would help with tinnitus though. On the other hand I've yet to find a really good description of how we process normal sound waves, and that would seem to be basic research that surely must be in someone's collection here?

Surely there's an actual branches of science devoted to that, with an extensive literature. What could they be called? I wonder if anyone funded by this agency knows?

 

[Galliardist]

Better yet, you'd have to relate their method to actual normal listening. Those various Japanese papers tended to use methods that were rather, um, contrived.

Lenhardt was writing about *bone conduction* btw.

I haven't been able to look for the paper I'm thinking of yet, I believe they used skin contact as well as listening in their test, and the results were quite specific. You're right about contrived methods, but they seem to be needed in this field sometimes... the problem with a lot of those Japanese papers is that nobody seems to be able to reproduce the results.

Tinnitus research is full of people looking for silver bullet solutions.

As for the link you gave, yet another description of "how hearing works" that cops out at the key point...
"The auditory nerve carries this electrical signal to the brain, which turns it into a sound that we recognize and understand.". What the brain does to understand sound is probably 90% of what we really need to know.

Audiology testing and research was concentrated on understanding only speech for a long time, and that is what is tested for in most hearing tests today: the easy route to understanding the brain, MRI scanning that has told us about so much else of what the brain does, is limited for hearing because you can't use high fidelity transducers (magnets and metal) and the environment is very noisy.

There will be good research out there, but a lot of noise as well, and hard for a lay person to pick out the nuggets, as it were.

 

[krabapple]

I haven't been able to look for the paper I'm thinking of yet, I believe they used skin contact as well as listening in their test, and the results were quite specific. You're right about contrived methods, but they seem to be needed in this field sometimes... the problem with a lot of those Japanese papers is that nobody seems to be able to reproduce the results.

Tinnitus research is full of people looking for silver bullet solutions.

As for the link you gave, yet another description of "how hearing works" that cops out at the key point...
"The auditory nerve carries this electrical signal to the brain, which turns it into a sound that we recognize and understand.". What the brain does to understand sound is probably 90% of what we really need to know.

Audiology testing and research was concentrated on understanding only speech for a long time, and that is what is tested for in most hearing tests today: the easy route to understanding the brain, MRI scanning that has told us about so much else of what the brain does, is limited for hearing because you can't use high fidelity transducers (magnets and metal) and the environment is very noisy.

There will be good research out there, but a lot of noise as well, and hard for a lay person to pick out the nuggets, as it were.

Good grief. I pointed to the NIH/NIDCD site not to have pedants pick apart the text on a particular page, but to point up what should be obvious: the existence of whole realms of science that actually study audition. And yes, 'what the brain does to understand sound" is within the ambit of those realms....psychoacoustics, audiology, cognitive sciences, neurosciences, and other overlaps.... in science you don't get to decide 'what we really need to know' until first you familiarize yourself with what we *do* know.

Lenhardt was a leading researcher in hearing loss remediation for decades. There's no quackery about this.

 

[pozz]

Actually, the frequencies mentioned in this paper match those referred to in a Japanese paper I read, where the result was that the ultrasonic frequencies from normal instruments were not heard or felt, but there was something about the Javanese gamelan providing some stimulation.
I'd have to look it up.
I don't understand why it would help with tinnitus though. On the other hand I've yet to find a really good description of how we process normal sound waves, and that would seem to be basic research that surely must be in someone's collection here?

That Japanese camp is alone in claiming that. It was started by Oohashi. Sorry to be short, but those exact claims have been discussed many, many times and the conclusion is that those papers have insufficient controls.

On the other hand I've yet to find a really good description of how we process normal sound waves, and that would seem to be basic research that surely must be in someone's collection here?

That's probably because the description isn't straightforward. It's a combo of the envelope, spectrum, timing between waves and periodic fluctuations.

Says who?

The paper is about "Ultrasonic Hearing in Humans: Applications for Tinnitus Treatment". It's a literature review. It has f-a to do with the home audio reproduction, the nominal topic of this forum, or the way we listen to audio from our system.

Says me. I'm no scientist, but none of the established science supports >20kHz hearing. What's that based on? The books I've read, what I understand of anatomy, etc. (On anatomy, Lenhardt says the cochlea/basilar membrane is sensitive to ultrasound is based on a calculation of where it could resonate. Conjecture with no supporting data.)

It's right there in Lenhardt' s paper. He cites Maass's work from 1946 in the sentence just before the one I quoted:

I see. I would not that have described that passage in that manner.

And calling this paper a "literature review" is uncritical.

Take this on the same page.

He cites himself, and two pieces of research from the same camp of Japanese researchers, 1 page long and 3 pages long.

Here's a key sentence: "More recently, the primary auditory cortex has been implicated, using magnetoencephalography, in processing ultrasound tonotopically, consistent with very high-frequency hearing." He's saying there's a suggestion that >20kHz signals can be processed by the brain. The pathways exist, and not only that, there are specific pathways for ultrasound ("processing ultrasound tonotopically").

[5] is the same paper I copied from and attached above about ultrasonic hearing in deaf subjects. It also references Lenhardt as one of its three citations.

It has one picture as evidence. Check it out:

There's certainly no description of the equipment used, measurements of signal or attempts to control intermodulation other than "Ultrasound was delivered to the right sterno-cleidomastoid through a newly devised ceramic vibrator in order to avoid noise signals". N1 is an auditory cortical response (an "evoked potential"), specifically N1 is a negative peak in the voltage swing and N1m is the magnetic version of that response when using that imaging technique. No description of the stimulating signal is given. No measurements of the resulting signal are given.

Whatever. My point is that anywhere you go in this paper you'll find gaping holes.

And a more general point. I don't know how familiar you are with auditory neurology. For example, a lot of the techniques are very invasive and cannot be performed on humans. Our main descriptions of what happens internally have been determined only after a bunch amount of studies showing similar things, and are largely based on negative proofs which compare normal hearing subjects to cadavers or those with traumatic injuries to their head. Many papers are based on probing or lesioning animal brains or using a genetically engineered ("knockout") animal that is missing some of the code that would allow it to develop normal auditory anatomy.

There is no way that a competent scientist or otolaryngologist would give credence to a paper like this, which is full of conjecture, or citations of this kind. If it was presented differently, sure. But as it is the paper proceeds by piling suggestion on suggestion, including the possibility of echolocation for humans, without a lot of supporting work or clear evidence, actual data, not just a number in brackets.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

December 26, 2007

New Voice to Skull Technology Freaks Out New Yorkers

Hear Voices? It May Be an Ad

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- New Yorker Alison Wilson was walking down Prince
Street in SoHo last week when she heard a woman's voice right in her ear
asking, "Who's there?

Who's there?" She looked around to find no one in her immediate
surroundings.

Then the voice said, "It's not your imagination." No, he's not crazy: Our
intrepid reporter Andrew Hampp ventures to SoHo to hear for himself the
technology that has New Yorkers 'freaked out' and A&E buzzing. Indeed it
isn't.

It's an ad for "Paranormal State," a ghost-themed series premiering on A&E
this week.

The billboard uses technology manufactured by Holosonic that transmits an
"audio spotlight" from a rooftop speaker so that the sound is contained
within your cranium.

The technology, ideal for museums and libraries or environments that require
a quiet atmosphere for isolated audio slideshows, has rarely been used on
such a scale before.

For random passersby and residents who have to walk unwittingly through the
area where the voice will penetrate their inner peace, it's another story.
Ms. Wilson, a New York-based stylist, said she expected the voice inside her
head to be some type of creative project but could see how others might
perceive it differently, particularly on a late-night stroll home.

"I might be a little freaked out, and I wouldn't necessarily think it's
coming from that billboard," she said. Less-intrusive approach? Joe Pompei,
president and founder of Holosonics, said the creepy approach is key to
drawing attention to A&E's show.

But, he noted, the technology was designed to avoid adding to noise
pollution.

"If you really want to annoy a lot of people, a loudspeaker is the best way
to do it," he said.

"If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to
hear that noise.

But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never
going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians.

The whole idea is to spare other people." Holosonics has partnered with a
cable network once before, when Court TV implemented the technology to
promote its "Mystery Whisperer" in the mystery sections of select
bookstores.

Mr. Pompei said the company also has tested retail deployments in grocery
stores with Procter & Gamble and Kraft for customized audio messaging.

So a customer, for example, looking to buy laundry detergent could suddenly
hear the sound of gurgling water and thus feel compelled to buy Tide as a
result of the sonic experience. Mr. Pompei contends that the technology will
take time for consumers to get used to, much like the lights on digital
signage and illuminated billboards did when they were first used.

The website Gawker posted an item about the billboard last week with the
headline "Schizophrenia is the new ad gimmick," and asked "How soon will it
be until in addition to the do-not-call list, we'll have a 'do not beam
commercial messages into my head' list?" "There's going to be a certain
population sensitive to it.

But once people see what it does and hear for themselves, they'll see it's
effective for getting attention," Mr. Pompei said. More disruptions A&E's $3
million to $5 million campaign for "Paranormal" includes other more
disruptive elements than just the one audio ad in New York.

 

[Killingbeans]

The billboard uses technology manufactured by Holosonic that transmits an
"audio spotlight" from a rooftop speaker so that the sound is contained
within your cranium.

Take a look at Holosonic's web page. It's a highly directional speaker, nothing more. The "cranium" bit comes from the imagination of whoever wrote the article.

 

[Holmz]

Maybe they are using that sort of tech in Cuba?

 

[Ron Texas]

Is this for a numbskull, someone with rocks in their head, or shit for brains?

 

[JRS]

Actually, the frequencies mentioned in this paper match those referred to in a Japanese paper I read, where the result was that the ultrasonic frequencies from normal instruments were not heard or felt, but there was something about the Javanese gamelan providing some stimulation.
I'd have to look it up.
I don't understand why it would help with tinnitus though. On the other hand I've yet to find a really good description of how we process normal sound waves, and that would seem to be basic research that surely must be in someone's collection here?

Odd you shpuld mention that: just today I was listening to a podcast talking about the beyond audibility of many hi-res specs, and the only material that could be reliably perceived as sounding different when fc was raised from 20 to 30kHz was weird music using gamelan triangles. Apparently they generate some bad-assed harmonics.

 

[tmtomh]

RE ultrasonic hearing - the ability of humans to hear or directly "detect" ultrasonic frequencies: @pozz is absolutely correct, The only source for this is the discredited and never-replicated Oohashi "hypersonic effect" study. It's nonsense - and if you come across an audiophile or hi-fi vendor claim that humans can hear ultrasonics and that claim references any source, that source is either Oohashi or another source which in turn relies on Oohashi and nothing else.

RE the ability for people to perceive sounds based on impacts on the skull or brain, apparently microwave radiation actually can, in certain circumstances, produce perceived sound because it creates small temperature variations in the brain, which in turn produces patterned pulsing of neurons. I know it sounds insane, but it was recently covered in a "what could explain Havana syndrome" video by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who IMHO Is a highly dependable source and would fit right in here at ASR:

Note that she does not say that people can hear voices or music or anything like that. And I have no information to offer on the OP's subject of skull conduction or tinnitus masking.

Personally I would be overjoyed if I could go into a doctor's office, have some ultrasound applied to my head, and experience a reduction in tinnitus as a result. And I'd certainly try it if I could be confident there were no significant health risks from the treatment. But I highly doubt it's a real thing. I think it's more likely to be BS.

 

[JRS]

Plausible. Bone conduction works across the spectrum and when a tuning fork if alternately placed on the forehead (or mastoid process, the bump behind the ear at about 4:00) and near the ear and not touching anything, most people can hear through air for considerably longer than through the skull. For those with conductive hearing loss via the ossicular chain, bone detection becomes more sensitive than air conduction--or at least as how this is crudely measured. So yes, we hear through our skulls, even at relatively modest volumes when a vibrating object is in contact with the skull.

Nor am I or should anyone really be surprised that there is some ultrasonic portion of the cochlea. The part that seems a bit dodgy based on what is given is that ultrasonic stimulation may lead to a re-acquisition of some hearing in nearby frequencies via neural plasticity and adaptive changes.

Oh that and whales/dolphins, primates and bats all diverged very early in mammalian evolution at about 90MYA, and so not sure what the point was about detecting ultrasonic evolution other than its very much a property of skull anatomy and the way hearing apparatus is embedded in a bony structure surrounded by gelatin.

What is clear is that this gives more fuel to the bats in the belfry wing of audiophiliacs insisting on 40kHz reproduction, but hopefully leads to some therapeutic modalities for tinnitus.

 

[Galliardist]

Good grief. I pointed to the NIH/NIDCD site not to have pedants pick apart the text on a particular page, but to point up what should be obvious: the existence of whole realms of science that actually study audition. And yes, 'what the brain does to understand sound" is within the ambit of those realms....psychoacoustics, audiology, cognitive sciences, neurosciences, and other overlaps.... in science you don't get to decide 'what we really need to know' until first you familiarize yourself with what we *do* know.

Lenhardt was a leading researcher in hearing loss remediation for decades. There's no quackery about this.

Sorry, but I am a pedant. Sometimes it's a strong point, sometimes not.

When I say "what we really need to know" I'm referring to people in the discussion here, not the state of science in the area. When digging on other subjects, I've usually managed to find papers and books that help.

With tinnitus, I've not really scratched the surface, but it seems there are multiple causes and therefore probably multiple solutions. And a LOT of snake oil. And when I've gone looking for papers, it seems there is a whole lot of research but not a lot of solid foundation underneath any of it.

When it comes to our subject here, this worries me. When we rely on confirmation bias and expectation bias to explain in-the-head differences, how good is that as solid science? We know that it is to do with the way the brain reacts to something, but how much more?

until first you familiarize yourself with what we *do* know.

Spot on. So what is the textbook for students on how the brain (ie. after the signal enters the auditory nerve) processes sound? I guess I'll have to start looking, something to do during the Christmas break apart from requiring some of my rudimentary guitar playing after a year with a bad shoulder...

 

[pozz]

Spot on. So what is the textbook for students on how the brain (ie. after the signal enters the auditory nerve) processes sound? I guess I'll have to start looking, something to do during the Christmas break apart from requiring some of my rudimentary guitar playing after a year with a bad shoulder...

Depending on what you want to cover, here are two:

• (2013) Brian Moore. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. 6th ed. Published by Brill. (Excellent, detailed.)
• (2008) Juan Roederer. The Physics & Psychophysics of Music. 4th ed. Published by Springer. (This is short, concise, but because of that you'll often stumble across things that aren't fully explained.)

 

[Galliardist]

Plausible. Bone conduction works across the spectrum and when a tuning fork if alternately placed on the forehead (or mastoid process, the bump behind the ear at about 4:00) and near the ear and not touching anything, most people can hear through air for considerably longer than through the skull. For those with conductive hearing loss via the ossicular chain, bone detection becomes more sensitive than air conduction--or at least as how this is crudely measured. So yes, we hear through our skulls, even at relatively modest volumes when a vibrating object is in contact with the skull.

Nor am I or should anyone really be surprised that there is some ultrasonic portion of the cochlea. The part that seems a bit dodgy based on what is given is that ultrasonic stimulation may lead to a re-acquisition of some hearing in nearby frequencies via neural plasticity and adaptive changes.

Oh that and whales/dolphins, primates and bats all diverged very early in mammalian evolution at about 90MYA, and so not sure what the point was about detecting ultrasonic evolution other than its very much a property of skull anatomy and the way hearing apparatus is embedded in a bony structure surrounded by gelatin.

What is clear is that this gives more fuel to the bats in the belfry wing of audiophiliacs insisting on 40kHz reproduction, but hopefully leads to some therapeutic modalities for tinnitus.

I would have thought that the cochlear can vibrate at ultrasonic frequencies as much as it likes, but if there are no hairs active at those frequencies nothing gets to the auditory nerve for normal hearing of those frequencies to take place. You'd need to establish some other route to stimulation of nerves for it to work.