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])