Building the auditory receiver
New experiment: equal stimulation, different temporal organization →
Experimental receiver comparison. Not physiologically
calibrated.
The current poem readings use the original amplitude receiver.
This laboratory also tests provisional mechanical adapters connected to
the original frozen neural simulation.
Source components: sound-driven mechanics and receptor channels
We now have a measured sound-to-antenna reference and a separate physical model of force-driven receptor channels. These replace the missing source components; their connection to neural current is still uncalibrated.
Same air-motion level, different frequency
The measured linear reference predicts different antennal movement for tones with equal air-velocity RMS. Its parameters come from one published response fit; it does not reproduce intensity-dependent tuning.
| Tone | Air RMS | Displacement RMS |
|---|
The two recordings: mechanical predictions only
Nearly equal input RMS does not produce identical movement. Displacement and speed can change in different directions. These are predictions from the linear reference, not new connectome responses or judgments of a rendition.
| Recording | Air RMS (mm/s) | Displacement RMS (nm) | Velocity RMS (mm/s) |
|---|
Force to receptor opening
The active transducer model uses physical displacements and predicts channel opening. At the same 1 pN peak force, changing frequency changes its response. This is a separate diagnostic; these channel values are not assigned to the poems.
| Force frequency | Mean excess open probability |
|---|
Calibration methods, checks and remaining connections ↗ · Calibration JSON ↗
Earlier component benchmarks
Waveform calibration into a virtual local air-velocity field; a published autonomous antennal oscillator; a receptor-adaptation motif; and a finer-clock adapter around the original frozen connectome. These components have not yet been validated as one biological receiver.
A source model, with a consequential limit
This trace is an oscillator fitted to chemically induced antennal motion. It oscillates without a poem. It is a numerical benchmark, not a rendering of a healthy fly listening.
Loading measured convergence results…
What changes when the neural clock changes?
The pilot runs the actual full connectome with its weights unchanged and its 20 ms propagation delay retained. Each run lasts half a second. Counts below are global spikes with the usual noise enabled, using one seed. This is a diagnostic, not a population estimate.
| Neural timestep | Silence spikes | Pulse spikes |
|---|
More spikes at a finer timestep show that this alters the apparatus. A new clock needs validation before its outputs can be compared with the existing poem experiments.
What is still missing?
- A joint acoustic calibration for the nonlinear active receiver.
- Validation of receptor-current and spiking responses beyond channel opening.
- A supported mapping from receptor output to the connectome’s abstract neural current.
- Validation of finer-clock activity over longer, repeated trials.
The sensitivity pilot measures how engineering choices change simulated responses. It does not establish a physiologically calibrated response or an actual fly’s experience.