Since caps tends to be received as "shouting", I will tag my responses with
my initials, to make them easily distinguishable.

You write:

 Could you explain what you mean by articulation ? Do you mean that
changes in the body/brain produce an audio signal ?

JK> of course changes in the body/brain can be amplified to produce an
electrical signal and that raw data can be processed to produce a different
electrical signal, and it is always possible to display such voltage
changes as an audio signal.  I know this "direct conversion" method has
been utilized with "seismic data.  What I meant by "articulation" is a
little different.  Overwhelming complexity in the brain is a fact of life.
You have different groups of neurons exciting and inhibiting each other in
some gigantic dynamic homeostasis, generating the miracle of our
perception, cognition, will, Self.  You could say it is comparable to
meteorology  patterns, a chaotic system in which there are, none the less,
workable, predictable invariants.  This is the main reason why I think the
problem must be addressed "from the top down", like a plumber fixing the
plumbing without turning off the water pressure.  Changes must be made
while the system is fully functioning, and likewise altered dynamically.
There's a lot to keep on top of.

What would be altered is "parameters".  My limited knowledge of
neurophysiology makes me uncertain exactly what the relevant parameters are
in PD.  For example, have researchers tried simultaneously feeding two
different electrical frequencies to separate locations [electrodes], or the
same frequencies in varying sequence pattern [timing]?  Or sending
stimulation contingent upon signals received from various electrode sites?
Naturally this would be a cumbersome process by trial and error alone.  By
"articulation" I mean the generation of a complex, multi-parameter sound
that would have more meaning to the pwp than to the scientist outside the
head of the pwp.

 I believe that audio signals affect the brains rhythm ( eg music ) .If
you are proposing a loop that is fine . But this loop must make  the
system settle down in to the desired pattern.

JK> By "loop" I mean the entire circular sequence of subject - stimulation
-
response - altered stimulation - altered response - subject.   It has been
demonstrated that given immediate knowledge [feedback] of one';s own
autonomic responses, one can learn to control those responses.  The entire
nervous system can be seen as a mass of interlocking feedback loops.  In
this sense "settling down" is a kind of intuitive "meditation", focusing on
one's internal response and altering whatever is necessary to achieve the
desired result.  The more articulate the display which one uses to
"receive" one's own internal dynamics, the more promising the prospects for
control.  Recent "sonification" technology allows a great deal of
multi-parameter information to be rendered as a single, custom designed,
"sound stream", which may well be a useful tool in "hearing the inner
workings" as they go on.



 The elementary feedback  system like guitars on stage have the opposite
effect . One can build
a controlling feedback system but this is complicated and requires
extensive knowledge of the system ( in this case the brain ) and
what the desired pattern is ( the appropriate neuron firing pattern )

JK> I would say that there is no way of knowing the "desired" or
"appropriate" firing pattern.  It is probably not static in any case.
There is no way of avoiding complication, only working with it.  On the
other hand, in all probability  neither of us is very proficient in
assembly language, yet here we sit at the top of the heirarchy, typing on
our computer and commanding unimaginable quantities of little ones and
zeros flying through the electronic medium.  From the top down.  Thus it
must be.

I am proposing much more modest objective of identifying the
abnormality in the neuron firing pattern and trying to dampen this
abnormality with an overlay pattern rather than a responding feedback
system . The latter is obviously better but much more complicated
and a knowledge of which overlay pattern does what, will help in
designing the feedback pattern .

JK> "knowledge of which overlay pattern does what" would conform to a
general definition of "parameters" , ie basically a neurophysiology
question.  I want to argue that how parameters interact as a whole is the
more essential question.  Interaction is all.  Again I assert the bias of
global over elemental approach.  This lesson was learned in an experiment
my friend and mentor conducted back in graduate school using a camera to
create images on the back of non-sighted subjects [thus using the back as a
"retina"].  When subjects were given control of the camera, their
understanding of what they were looking at "out there" advanced by a
qualitative leap.

This has gotten very long winded.  I hope it is helpful.  In a few days I
will have to be away from this computer terminal for a month or so, but do
look forward to continuing our discussion as time goes on.
Keep curious.  Keep the faith.  Keep on keeping on.


Peace,

Jonathan ([log in to unmask])