Ci And Background Noise

TAMI SAM said:
Cloggy,im going to have to spend some time looking into Lotte's blogs.I wonder if its easier being a child to learn to block out background noise. ....
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is....

have a look at this video.
Here, 1-1/2 years ago, Lotte has had CI for 13 months. We're having dinner, and X-mas music is on.
She understands the Q&A.... Part of that is due to sign, and lipreading, but also that she is not bothered by the sound.
 
SteveAUD said:
I don't believe she is assuming anything. She is merely stating what she has observed in communicating with her daughter on a day to day basis. It isn't too difficult to determine if your son or daughter responds appropriately in the presence of background noise (with or without a CI).


Tami-if there's anything I can do for ya just PM me. I do not know what your audiogram shows, but I can try to explain why you may or may not be a candidate for a CI.
Click to expand...

Well, cloggy is a he, and conclusion based on observation is an assumption.
 
Cloggy said:
Jillio, Jillio, Jillio,
Perhaps understanding questions in a noisy environment might give an indication... something she does not when she wears only 1 CI....

Now, go study
Click to expand...

cloggy, cloggy, cloggy, I spend my days and nights studying. And a conlcusion based on observation is still an assumption. Observing is still furnishing you with second hand information based on your interpretation.
 
neecy said:
Isn't OBSERVATION of how somebody deals with different situations acceptable? If firsthand experience was the only acceptable source of reasoning and understanding, then scientific observations would be moot.

What you are saying is akin to telling somebody who has two normal legs that says that "A child with two legs runs better than a child with one" that they have no right to make that judgment because they've never had only one leg. And we both know that's an asinine thing to say.
Click to expand...

Observing a child running is not a subjective judgement. You are using a falliccious comparison, and therefore, have misinterpreted what I am saying. And observation in a controlled environment is not the same as observation in an uncontrolled environment. And in an uncontrolled environment, personal interpretation clouds the conclusion. So, no it is not the same at all.
 
Cloggy said:
But jillio, how would you know that unless you had experienced it first hand?
:bye:
Click to expand...


Exactly, cloggy. I have experienced it first hand, and so recognize it in others. Thank you so much for validating my point.
 
Cloggy said:
I'm sure it is....

have a look at this video.
Here, 1-1/2 years ago, Lotte has had CI for 13 months. We're having dinner, and X-mas music is on.
She understands the Q&A.... Part of that is due to sign, and lipreading, but also that she is not bothered by the sound.
Click to expand...

Huh? If she is using sign and lipreading for comprehension, of course the background noise isn't as issue. She is compensating for the background noise through the use of the visual. You have once again invalidated your own assertions.
 
jillio said:
Well, cloggy is a he, and conclusion based on observation is an assumption.
Click to expand...


I appologize for the mistake on calling him a her.


Not if the observation is validated by clear responses. Speech pathologists use behavioral observation on a daily basis to evaluate a child as young as 2.
 
SteveAUD said:
I appologize for the mistake on calling him a her.


Not if the observation is validated by clear responses. Speech pathologists use behavioral observation on a daily basis to evaluate a child as young as 2.
Click to expand...

Assumption is still included in evaluation, because although it is based on informed interpretation, it is still subjective in nature as it is totally dependent upon the observer. Therefore, the assumption is supported, not validated. Unless one has controlled for all extraneous variable that could influence response, one can only assume that the behavioral response being observed is correlated to the variable one is attritbuting the response to.
 
jillio said:
Assumption is still included in evaluation, because although it is based on informed interpretation, it is still subjective in nature as it is totally dependent upon the observer. Therefore, the assumption is supported, not validated. Unless one has controlled for all extraneous variable that could influence response, one can only assume that the behavioral response being observed is correlated to the variable one is attritbuting the response to.
Click to expand...


Validation through observation is like the cornerstone of the psychology and psychiatry profession as a whole. Let alone it seemed to work pretty well for us on gravity, or would you argue the object isn't falling, rather the earth is rising?
 
SteveAUD said:
Validation through observation is like the cornerstone of the psychology and psychiatry profession as a whole. Let alone it seemed to work pretty well for us on gravity, or would you argue the object isn't falling, rather the earth is rising?
Click to expand...

It is the cornerstone, but it is employed in a controlled environment where extraneous variables do not exert an undue influence on results. And observation is supported through statistical analysis. Gravity was not discovered simply through observation, butthrough mathematical priciple that systemactically ruled out all other explanation.
 
jag said:
You knwo at first I used the auto alot, but hated the fact that the vol dropped so much. Now I use adro and bump the sense. down til what I want to hear is louder then the noise I don't want to. Hmmm, maybe that doesn't make sense. But using adro and controlling the sense. myself works much better in alot of situations.
Click to expand...

Yes I've done this too.

I use auto sensititivity when I just want to chill and so the dampening of the general volume doesn't bother me.

But in a noisy environment when I am talking to someone then rolling down the sensitivity works well. In fact, thinking about this we should probably get our audies to include this as a separate custom program so as to save time rolling down the sensitivity!

In an extremely noisy environment though (a large room full of about 500 people all talking at once for example) I give up and turn off my CI and lipread. I actually get by better than my hearing friends in the same situation (they all struggle) and they are really fascinated that I can have a conversation across a noisy room with my husband!
 
R2D2 said:
But in a noisy environment when I am talking to someone then rolling down the sensitivity works well. In fact, thinking about this we should probably get our audies to include this as a separate custom program so as to save time rolling down the sensitivity!
Click to expand...

I have two open programs on both of my processors for this very reason. One of them (program 2) is set to a sensitivity of 6 (although it isn't locked) so I don't have to worry about changing sensitivity every time I'm in background noise.

I've also found it helpful to have two open programs so that if I experience problems with one program (for example, static), I can still continue using the other until I'm able to see the audi.
 
I just simply use Autosensivity. I work in very noisy background area. I switched on Autosensitivity before I came in work. I can hear the sound tapered to minimal. The only sound I can hear clearly is the Tug or Forklift beeping, rolling equiptment produced loud clatter over rough floor, employees talking 10 to 20 feet away (if looking at them LOL), and Intercom or walkie talkie talking. The roaring machine noise was shunted to near silence.

It was a neat experience that one of supervisor was about to walk across the workfloor when Tug was beeping on it's way. I grabbed and pulled her off the path. She was confused what's going on. I told her Look! the Tug was beeping and it was on your path. She said she couldn't hear the beeping and is it working? I told her yes Tug horn is working fine. I told her that it's my CI w/ Autosensitvity that cut off background noise but can hear random noises very clearly. She was shocked how lucky I am LOL. (the supervisor is hearing and she can't hear well in very noisy area)..

It all depends on individual. I was suprised some can tolerate noisy background with normal setting!! I couldn't do it. I cringed when there are loud background noise (like rolling equiptment make clatter noise on rough floor which are the loudest noise while on Autosensivity!! I cringed when I hear it.. It doesn't hurt my ear but it's VERY uncomfortable)..

If there is a constant background noise using normal setting on CI like in Chuck E Cheese pizza place w/ noisy children ect.., over the time, your hearing become dulled or flat out. You may ended up turning your CI volume or sensivity up and still flat... To restore your hearing, remove or turn off your CI and wait for one or two hours. Before turning it back on, be sure adjust ur volume or sensivity down to comfortable level then turn it on so you won't cringe when you turned it back on LOL..

If you didn't wear your CI for few days or so. Then wear it. You'll be surprised that your hearing is so sensitive until later it become normal LOL.

The longer you wear CI, your brain get used to the sound from CI and eventually ignores some certain sounds which is constant or gotten used to it. It's pretty much the same as hearing people. Some are so used to sound and brain ignores it.. I used to hear microwave oven beep and now I hear a little. It's been 3 years since I had remapped. I'm going back to remap later in future. So it's important not to remap often. Give your ear a break just for day or so. Also check your CI microphone to be sure it's clear of debris too.

So it's up to you to decide if CI benefit or not. There are different CI brands to choose (I betcha 3 of them). Research it's function, features ect before you go for it.

Good Luck
Catty
 
Even after having my first CI for 2 1/2 years, I'm still overly sensitive to loud sounds like lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, motorcycles, etc. My CI audi said this was due to the fact that I haven't been able to hear these sounds in a "normal" sense (i.e. the way someone with normal hearing would hear them) in many, many years. However, I was also told that my tolerance for these sounds would gradually improve with increased exposure.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
cloggy, cloggy, cloggy, I spend my days and nights studying. And a conlcusion based on observation is still an assumption. Observing is still furnishing you with second hand information based on your interpretation.
Click to expand...
I don't know about your conlcusion (concussion?) but you should study less... and have a look around...

So, me noticing that my daughter has less trouble understanding us with 2 CI's versus 1 CI in a noisy evvironment is second-hand information....

Jullio, Jullio, Jullio......

OK... guess is was "concussion"....
 
Cloggy said:
I don't know about your conlcusion (concussion?) but you should study less... and have a look around...

So, me noticing that my daughter has less trouble understanding us with 2 CI's versus 1 CI in a noisy evvironment is second-hand information....

Jullio, Jullio, Jullio......

OK... guess is was "concussion"....
Click to expand...

Which it has been proven that we hear better in background noise with two ears vs. one, among the other advantages of having two ears.
 
Cloggy said:
I don't know about your conlcusion (concussion?) but you should study less... and have a look around...

So, me noticing that my daughter has less trouble understanding us with 2 CI's versus 1 CI in a noisy evvironment is second-hand information....

Jullio, Jullio, Jullio......

OK... guess is was "concussion"....
Click to expand...

Yep, observation is still second hand. Unless, of course, you are deaf and have become "hearing" just like your daughter with CI and have been hiding that from us.
 
Jillo WHY is observing something that another person is experiencing (hearing in a noisy environment better with TWO CI's versus one) completely disregarded by you? You seem to think that the ONLY kind of observation that is worth listening to (no pun intended) is first-hand. Why is that? If firsthand experience was the only scientifically acceptable kind of experience, then 99% of scientific observations would be null and void - because they rely on OBSERVATION of how people interact with the environment. I find Cloggy's observations of his daughter to be perfectly fine examples. I asked you before, but you didn't reply - your reasoning is almost like watching a child with a prosthetic leg walk across a room - but saying people can't say the child walks better with two legs instead of one, because the child didn't say that directly. Observation is completely scientifically sound when it comes to making comparisons!
 
neecy said:
Jillo WHY is observing something that another person is experiencing (hearing in a noisy environment better with TWO CI's versus one) completely disregarded by you? You seem to think that the ONLY kind of observation that is worth listening to (no pun intended) is first-hand. Why is that? If firsthand experience was the only scientifically acceptable kind of experience, then 99% of scientific observations would be null and void - because they rely on OBSERVATION of how people interact with the environment. I find Cloggy's observations of his daughter to be perfectly fine examples. I asked you before, but you didn't reply - your reasoning is almost like watching a child with a prosthetic leg walk across a room - but saying people can't say the child walks better with two legs instead of one, because the child didn't say that directly. Observation is completely scientifically sound when it comes to making comparisons!
Click to expand...

I didn't disregard it, I said it was second hand, and therefore, subject tothe observer's bias. Why is it that you insist ontwisting my statements? And you find the examples fine because you obviously agree with him, judging from your obsession with defending him. I did reply tot hat, maybe you need to go back and see it. Science isn't about making comparisons in the way you describe. Science doesn't use fallacy to support their hypothesis. You do.
 
Back
Top