Aren't we wasting time with HAs...

Like I said, that each type of CI work differently for everybody and some don't work for them. Nothing in life in the world we live in is not perfect. :) :fingersx:
 
Angel said:
Hi Vallee, I'm a bit confused here, if you have a nerve damage, and is implanted, how will the nerve requires to send the sound signal through the brain if it's damaged? ...


Edit: Will this procedure work on deaf people who have nerve damage?...
Click to expand...

I don't know but I will ask. I was always told that my hearing damaged the nerves from the rheumatic fever. I went through a lot of testing - audiology, mri, ct, exam. Maybe the damage is in the part of the ear that is bypassed in ci surgery. I don't know but I will ask.
 
Tousi said:
Yes, Angel it will work but what I was surprised at was Vallee saying he didn't lose his residual hearing.
Click to expand...


I still have hearing wo the CIs. I did not have a lot to start with, but I still have some residual hearing.

Valerie
 
vallee said:
I have nerve damage and I also did not lose my residual hearing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't understand how it is possible. If the nerves that are supposed to send signals to the brain aren't working how can anything get through?
 
I'm wondering if Valle is referring to the hair cells or the 8th nerve.. If it's the 8th nerve, then it's prolly not badly damaged. If it were or if it were gone, then CIs won't help.
 
jag said:
Well because the HA can do enough for a person with a mild loss. Or even a moderate loss so they should and will still be the first option.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. This is "old school" way of thinking. I say, why bother with "enough", if more than "enough" is available?


Having said that when one gets into the severe/profound range many don't do that great with the HA. I think they really should change the criteria required to qualify to emphasize more realistic hearing situations.
Click to expand...


That's what I am talking about. I wear HAs since childhood, I know too well how one hears thru them. It's nowhere close as CI even if one perfected listening thru these HAs.
HAs only amplify the sounds we HEAR, the rest is brain's memory. If one wants to hear what's no more possible thru HA - and with HA you only hear what you can AMPLIFY - a CI is gonna do that, so why not take an advantage of it.

IMO, sticking to HAs in the era of new technological advances is like sticking to the hand winded, two pieces telephone when cellular phones are on the market.. you can hear thru both, but...

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
My point exactly. This is "old school" way of thinking. I say, why bother with "enough", if more than "enough" is available?
Fuzzy
Click to expand...

You're saying even those with milder losses should be implanted? That seems drastic to me. :shock: The implants are designed for those who can't be helped by HAs. Hence why we have to be tested so it can be determined if we're candidates.
 
deafskeptic said:
You're saying even those with milder losses should be implanted? That seems drastic to me. :shock: The implants are designed for those who can't be helped by HAs. Hence why we have to be tested so it can be determined if we're candidates.
Click to expand...

Yes, you got it- I am challenging that way of thinking :)
because, like I've said- the technology is there. why not use it to its full potential.

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
Yes, you got it- I am challenging that way of thinking :)
because, like I've said- the technology is there. why not use it to its full potential.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

Sorry, I dont agree because I have seen too many chidlren who get little or no benefits from their CIs due to different factors so if a child is doing well with HAs, why take the risk? I wish you would work in a deaf program like I do so u can see how some children are successful with their CIs and how some are not. I dont think it would be right to risk the child's mild hearing loss and make them deaf only for them to get less benefits from their CIs than their HAs. Now, that would make a child grow up angry at their parents for implanting them when they had good hearing with their HAs in the first place.
 
Last edited:
vallee said:
I still have hearing wo the CIs. I did not have a lot to start with, but I still have some residual hearing.

Valerie
Click to expand...

Vallee, I'm sorry but I think we are getting confused here. Residual hearing means how ever much hearing you have left MINUS the HA and CI. So until they come up with a way to BOTH implant and save the residual hearing at the same time, I believe the side(s) you were implanted in has(have) no residual hearing left.
 
Audiofuzzy said:
Yes, you got it- I am challenging that way of thinking :)
because, like I've said- the technology is there. why not use it to its full potential.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

That challenge will fall by the wayside; there's a reason for the federal guidelines or else the insurance companies would go out of business. There needs to be some restraint. A very mild loss and using a HA is not less than having a CI, in my opinion but that doesn't matter because the guidelines are in the way and for a good reason.
 
dreama said:
Sorry, but I don't understand how it is possible. If the nerves that are supposed to send signals to the brain aren't working how can anything get through?
Click to expand...

I thought having nerve damage but an intact cochlea took the place of the nerves by it's very function.
 
sr171soars said:
Interesting point! To me this is a very subjective issue. Some of us took off like a duck in the water as far as adapting to a CI. I basically was a going concern on the second day with speech and about four for all around sounds. So from that standpoint, I could say it was soooo much better than my HA hands down.
Click to expand...

I should clarify - I've also had some pretty remarkable results (although, speech on the second day? Wow!). I did notice significant improvement quickly after activation, and my hearing is already much better than it was with hearing aids before the surgery. But I also know that it's not as good as it was several years ago (say, 5 years, just for the sake of pinning a number to it). That's not such a big deal; but it does suggest that 5 years ago (or for someone without a progressive loss who has heaering like I had back then), a CI would not have been appropriate, because I got equal or better benefits with hearing aids Obviously, I haven't hit the limit on assimilating the CI into my sense of hearing, so this is more of a thought exercise, but ... yeah.
 
ismi said:
I should clarify - I've also had some pretty remarkable results (although, speech on the second day? Wow!). I did notice significant improvement quickly after activation, and my hearing is already much better than it was with hearing aids before the surgery. But I also know that it's not as good as it was several years ago (say, 5 years, just for the sake of pinning a number to it). That's not such a big deal; but it does suggest that 5 years ago (or for someone without a progressive loss who has heaering like I had back then), a CI would not have been appropriate, because I got equal or better benefits with hearing aids Obviously, I haven't hit the limit on assimilating the CI into my sense of hearing, so this is more of a thought exercise, but ... yeah.
Click to expand...


But who knows, maybe if you were implanted these 5 years earlier you would stay at that level 'till today.

Fuzzy
 
Tousi said:
That challenge will fall by the wayside; there's a reason for the federal guidelines or else the insurance companies would go out of business. There needs to be some restraint. A very mild loss and using a HA is not less than having a CI, in my opinion but that doesn't matter because the guidelines are in the way and for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Yes I believe it has mostly to do with the fact that it is, after all, a surgical procedure.
But not because of "well, HAs is still good enough".

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
Yes, you got it- I am challenging that way of thinking :)
because, like I've said- the technology is there. why not use it to its full potential.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

I think even many CI ENTs would disagree with you as the surgery does destroy much of the remaining natural hearing. As great as the CIs are, it's still not the same as natural hearing. That's why it seems drastic to me.

If it were not for the fact it destroys much of the natural hearing, I'd be all for it.
 
deafskeptic said:
I think even many CI ENTs would disagree with you as the surgery does destroy much of the remaining natural hearing. As great as the CIs are, it's still not the same as natural hearing. That's why it seems drastic to me.

If it were not for the fact it destroys much of the natural hearing, I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting the reason of implantation - which is- the residual is no longer sufficient.

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
You seem to be forgetting the reason of implantation - which is- the residual is no longer sufficient.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

Fuzzy, I am referring to those with milder losses and their residul hearing is sufficient to be helped with HAs.
 
Tousi said:
Vallee, I'm sorry but I think we are getting confused here. Residual hearing means how ever much hearing you have left MINUS the HA and CI. So until they come up with a way to BOTH implant and save the residual hearing at the same time, I believe the side(s) you were implanted in has(have) no residual hearing left.
Click to expand...

I have two implants. I still have a little residual hearing on my left side. I did not have any hearing on the right side. Thats why I did two because I did not have much residual or benefit from hearing aids.
 
Yes, and even those with severe and profound losses can be helped by hearing aids. Your analogy isn't correct. The difference in sound quality is probloy like the difference between a well preserved last generation record, and a MP3.
 
Back
Top