Reply to comment on "Auditory-nerve first-spike latency and auditory absolute threshold: a computer model".

Krisha [J. Acoust. Soc. Am., in press (2006)] has commented that an explanation based on presynaptic calcium accumulation at the inner hair cell is an incorrect explanation for the success of a model of the auditory periphery [Meddis, R., J. Acoustic. Soc. Am. 119, 406-417 (2006)] in explaining data on first-spike auditory nerve latency. This reply accepts the criticism and accepts the strength of an alternative explanation based on expected latencies in random sequences of low-probability events. This reply also goes on briefly to explore the application of this argument to other phenomena, including the dependence of absolute auditory threshold on the duration of the stimulus. This has wide-ranging implications for the concept of "temporal integration" in psychophysics.