IMO, very interesting! A complete technical comparison of AB's Harmony vs. Cochlear's Nucleus 5 processor!
Compare: Harmony vs Nucleus 5
Compare: Harmony vs Nucleus 5
These details are only useful if you know what they mean.
1. The temporal resolution numbers really aren't important, as it has already been shown that most CI users are unable to discriminate pitch differences for rates above 300 pulses per second per channel. The total stimulation rates as listed there for both devices are more than capable of delivering this.
2. The spectral resolution numbers are also overexaggerated. Even for systems with as many as 22 electrode pairs/channels most users are incapable of utilising more than 4 - 8 channels for speech recognition. Yes more channels in theory allows for better pitch perception, but in practice this is relevant only to puretones and does not translate to complex sounds because of current interactions between electrodes.
3. An expanded input dynamic range is useful for quiet situations, but in noise it just means you hear more noise, so this could be a positive or a negative depending upon the situation you're in. Current studies suggest an input dynamic range of 40 is better than one of 30, but there is no evidence ot suggest an IDR of > 45 offers any further benefit.
4. Potential pitch percepts - the emphasis being very much on potential. Pitch perception research suggests that CI users are unable to reliably rank the direction of a pitch change for a pair of notes 1/4 of an octave apart. Current speech processing strategies are very poor at providing pitch information, as they must work within the limitations of electrical stimulation in fluid-filled environment, the emphasis naturally being on speech as that is their main purpose.
5. Sound coding strategies are generally proprietary and largely device-specific. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the advanced bionics strategies are superior to anything else on the market.
Also, you seem to post biased toward one brand, but you haven't told us anything about yourself.
Do you work for a CI company?
How about you tell me a bit about yourself first faire_jour
If I prefer to remain annoymous then let that be my business, as if it were otherwise I may choose to be elsewhere. All you need know is that I have some experience in such matters, but do not claim to be an expert, nor be the final word on any matter in this world. As I said above "Feel free to bring any claims, and I'll do my best to see whether they're justified." You may believe what you want. That is your prerogative![]()
i am the hearing parent of a deaf child with an ab implant. but everyone here knows that. i dont trust you.
So long as you question marketing claims without reliable proof of evidence, then I'm fine with thatYou will however find that most of what I commented on above is in the Wilson & Dorman (2008) article cited. It really is a good read, although perhaps a bit difficult.
you should explain your motives for being here. your presence feels suspect.