Aren't we wasting time with HAs...

jillio

I did find that the article that mention about preserving some residual hearing with a standard electrode array. Below is part of the article and the full article can be found here.

Hearing Preservation in Patients With a Cochlear Implant

But even so you still going to lose more of your residual hearing 15db in this case and even with the hybrid it can be total. My point is that getting the cochlear implant should still be view as losing all your residual hearing.


Options for Hearing Preservation
by René H. Gifford and Jon K. Shallop

"Hearing preservation with a cochlear implant is also possible with a conventional long electrode array. It had been assumed that any residual hearing in the implanted ear would be sacrificed due to surgical trauma; however, in some instances, this is no longer the case. Increasingly skilled surgeons employing soft surgical techniques—which may include a smaller cochleostomy or round window insertion and more careful electrode insertion—with thinner electrode arrays and/or perimodiolar electrodes (which also may allow for a relatively atraumatic cochlear insertion) have all helped contribute to hearing preservation with standard cochlear implants.

In the past, cochlear implant patients typically had little or no measurable hearing preoperatively, but today many cochlear implant candidates have significant residual hearing, making hearing preservation possible. Balkany et al. (2006) reported measurable acoustic hearing in 28 standard, perimodiolar cochlear implant recipients, demonstrating a mean change of 15 dB in the pure-tone average (250, 500, and 1000 Hz) and resulting in a mean postoperative pure-tone average of 114 dB HL. At Mayo Clinic in Rochester, six implant recipients (four adults and two children) were implanted with a standard long-electrode device, but in retrospect were generally found to meet the audiologic criteria for an EAS or hybrid device (Gifford et al., 2007). These six individuals demonstrated hearing preservation in the implanted ear that rivals short-electrode EAS or hybrid recipients (see Figure 2 at right).

Yet another variation of EAS is the standard cochlear implant recipient who combines electric hearing with contralateral aided acoustic hearing, commonly referred to as bimodal listening. Though most would not group bimodal listeners into the category of hearing preservation, they are certainly combining the electric and acoustic perception, albeit across ears."

Thanks. The EAS is the surgical procedure that I was referring to. It hasn't been in use long enough, or sufficient numbers of surgeons trained int he technique to actually come to any conclusions that ar generalizable. My reference came from the Journal of Otolaryngology, a professional journal directed at ENTs.
 
jillio

I did find that the article that mention about preserving some residual hearing with a standard electrode array. Below is part of the article and the full article can be found here.

Hearing Preservation in Patients With a Cochlear Implant

But even so you still going to lose more of your residual hearing 15db in this case and even with the hybrid it can be total. My point is that getting the cochlear implant should still be view as losing all your residual hearing.


Options for Hearing Preservation
by René H. Gifford and Jon K. Shallop

"Hearing preservation with a cochlear implant is also possible with a conventional long electrode array. It had been assumed that any residual hearing in the implanted ear would be sacrificed due to surgical trauma; however, in some instances, this is no longer the case. Increasingly skilled surgeons employing soft surgical techniques—which may include a smaller cochleostomy or round window insertion and more careful electrode insertion—with thinner electrode arrays and/or perimodiolar electrodes (which also may allow for a relatively atraumatic cochlear insertion) have all helped contribute to hearing preservation with standard cochlear implants.

In the past, cochlear implant patients typically had little or no measurable hearing preoperatively, but today many cochlear implant candidates have significant residual hearing, making hearing preservation possible. Balkany et al. (2006) reported measurable acoustic hearing in 28 standard, perimodiolar cochlear implant recipients, demonstrating a mean change of 15 dB in the pure-tone average (250, 500, and 1000 Hz) and resulting in a mean postoperative pure-tone average of 114 dB HL. At Mayo Clinic in Rochester, six implant recipients (four adults and two children) were implanted with a standard long-electrode device, but in retrospect were generally found to meet the audiologic criteria for an EAS or hybrid device (Gifford et al., 2007). These six individuals demonstrated hearing preservation in the implanted ear that rivals short-electrode EAS or hybrid recipients (see Figure 2 at right).

Yet another variation of EAS is the standard cochlear implant recipient who combines electric hearing with contralateral aided acoustic hearing, commonly referred to as bimodal listening. Though most would not group bimodal listeners into the category of hearing preservation, they are certainly combining the electric and acoustic perception, albeit across ears."

See the part that I bolded? That is why I thought it a drastic move for people with milder loss to be implanted. See posts 107 and 108 in this thread.

Jillio has a point about not being able to generalize about this just yet. If I'm certain that implants won't destroy the hearing you have left, I'd be more supportive. I'm taking a wait and see approach first here.
 
I didnt mean to imply that the residual hearing would most definitely be saved. I only meant to imply that they are working towards preserving it.

When I got my implant one of the reasons why I chose the AB is because they had soft tip technology that COULD preserve residual hearing. Although for me, I really didnt care much as long as I could hear again. I also chose the AB because of the research and advances they are making with sound technology.

The residual hearing is not an issue for most of us who want the implant at this time. But I do think it is wonderful that they are researching and making advances in trying to preserve it.
 
Even if the residual is damaged- so what - the CI is providing far more hearing than the aforesaid residual?

Fuzzy
 
Even if the residual is damaged- so what - the CI is providing far more hearing than the aforesaid residual?

Fuzzy

Not for everyone..It works for some and doesnt work for others. Everyone has different ways of processing sounds. That is one of the few reasons I refuse to get a CI.
 
I'm not trying to be rude or anything... but I am just wondering how does one suddenly seem to think they know everything about what a CI is or does or doesn't do when they dont even have one?

Maybe it is just me but I wonder how someone who doesnt have something can suddenly be an authority on it? I realize you can learn alot through research alone. But to really talk with authority I believe one needs to experience what they are like firsthand.

Most posters are only advocating for sign with a CI, but I am noticing some posters are posting like they know absolutely everything about a CI and how well it works or doesnt work, when they dont even have one.

Posting about a child's experience is different as you are the parent and watching the experience first hand on a daily basis.

For example, Cloggy posts OMG OMG, my daughter called me on the phone today and heard everything that was said. That is fine that is a moment or experience he too shared in. *remember example* but for someone to post that say oh CI's are the best there is out on the market today or for someone to say a CI is just like a hearing aid, without experiencing it for themselves is in my opinion not someone who should be really speaking about it.

I say this because it would be like me posting all about the grand canyon and what it is like to *experience* the grand canyon. How can I? Ive never even visited the grand canyon. So therefore, I know nothing about what it is like to see the grand canyon and experience it first hand.

Sorry for going off topic. But these are just my 2 cents.
 
Not for everyone..It works for some and doesnt work for others. Everyone has different ways of processing sounds. That is one of the few reasons I refuse to get a CI.

Correct! :thumb:

Fuzzy acts like she's an expert on cochlear implant, I had a laugh over her ignorance statement.
 
I'm not trying to be rude or anything... but I am just wondering how does one suddenly seem to think they know everything about what a CI is or does or doesn't do when they dont even have one?

Maybe it is just me but I wonder how someone who doesnt have something can suddenly be an authority on it? I realize you can learn alot through research alone. But to really talk with authority I believe one needs to experience what they are like firsthand.

:werd:!!! I too believe that one needs to experiences whats it like to have a CI instead of creating this thread telling us we're wasting our time with hearing aids...
 
I'm not trying to be rude or anything... but I am just wondering how does one suddenly seem to think they know everything about what a CI is or does or doesn't do when they dont even have one?

Maybe it is just me but I wonder how someone who doesnt have something can suddenly be an authority on it? I realize you can learn alot through research alone. But to really talk with authority I believe one needs to experience what they are like firsthand.

Most posters are only advocating for sign with a CI, but I am noticing some posters are posting like they know absolutely everything about a CI and how well it works or doesnt work, when they dont even have one.

Posting about a child's experience is different as you are the parent and watching the experience first hand on a daily basis.

For example, Cloggy posts OMG OMG, my daughter called me on the phone today and heard everything that was said. That is fine that is a moment or experience he too shared in. *remember example* but for someone to post that say oh CI's are the best there is out on the market today or for someone to say a CI is just like a hearing aid, without experiencing it for themselves is in my opinion not someone who should be really speaking about it.

I say this because it would be like me posting all about the grand canyon and what it is like to *experience* the grand canyon. How can I? Ive never even visited the grand canyon. So therefore, I know nothing about what it is like to see the grand canyon and experience it first hand.

Sorry for going off topic. But these are just my 2 cents.

Exactly !!:rockon: That what I thought that too :roll:
 
Experience with Natural Hearing, HA and CI over 3 years

My experience with Natural Hearing, HA and CI over the past 3 years.

For me, over the past 3 years, I have gone from pretty good natural hearing through both ITE and BTE digital HA along with an Analog BTE loaner while my BTE digital came in and now to a CI so I can say I have done it all almost since I have only experienced one brand of CI but both HA technologies. No, I have never had a Bone Conductive Hearing device so I have no idea what that is like. I can say that it has been over 17 years since I have heard in Stereo so I don't know if I want a second CI unless that will wipe out the remaining tinnitus I have in my RT ear.

My opinion is that any type of HA or at least my current CI, hearing in noisy environments is not easy. I most of the time have to look at the person speaking. Yes, there are advantages to CI's and HA's (digital) over natural hearing in that I can turn the noise OFF if I choose. Not so with natural hearing, you can plug your ears but that will never totally shut off the noise. I can talk on the phone if I want to during a concert and I can hear the person on the other end perfectly. Not so with Natural hearing.

As far as asking the question or making the statement of why settle for HA's and not going for the newest technology of CI's. I can say that with a CI, if the battery goes dead, you can't hear anything. If it breaks, you can't hear anything. At least with a HA, you still have some hearing.

In regards to quality of sound from a HA vs CI. The two digital HA's I had, if they were programmed correctly, It was pretty much like I heard before I started loosing my hearing. If my hearing loss stabilized, I never would have opted for a CI since what I could hear with a HA was so good over not being able to hear well. My CI, after 2 months of programming to adjust the sensitivity, I can hear as well as I use to be able to before I lost my hearing. I have trouble with background noise mainly if there is a constant noise of 1000 hz at 60 db and that noise is turned down and no longer amplified, if someone starts speaking, any noise at 1000 hz and under 60 db, the processor does not send the signal. Over 60 db, it will send the signal. Maybe some of you will be able to understand this, maybe not. The processor can only process the signals it receives so if the microphones are muffled by water or dirt, it will not "hear" the sounds right just like if someone had an ear infection, things just don't sound right.

Lastly, if you refer to comparing Analog HA's to CI's, there is NO comparison. There is also NO comparison from Analog to Digital HA's but you will need to pay some $$$ to get a good Digital that has enough processing power to make noises sound right. The Analog HA I used as a loaner was much more powerful than my ITE or BTE Digital HA's and also used a much larger battery that had more kick. The Digital HA's have pretty much the same analysis software as a CI in my opinion since my good Digital HA sounded the same as my current CI which is all digital.

Either way, I am thankful that I had the opportunity to extend my hearing with a HA as it allowed me to hear things I otherwise was unable to hear. I am also extremely thankful that my insurance company and Dr. approved and allowed me to get a CI. I know my hearing will never be as good as my wife's but at least I can hear her. I will also never know what my daughter's voice really sounds like with natural hearing but based on everything I hear sounds exactly as it use to when I could hear, I believe I am hearing her voice as it really sounds.

Anyway, that has been my experience. Maybe it will help some of you in your search for information to help you decide. I spent a LOT of time reading posts here when I was on my search for information.

Steve
 
Correct! :thumb:

Fuzzy acts like she's an expert on cochlear implant, I had a laugh over her ignorance statement.

That thread Cheri, and many other, would do perfectly well WITHOUT such an assinine comments.
In fact I firmly believe it's because of too many such comments there is such a nasty attitude on AD.


Fuzzy
 
Not for everyone..It works for some and doesnt work for others. Everyone has different ways of processing sounds. That is one of the few reasons I refuse to get a CI.

Even so, if you read any threads of posts made by CI users and their experiences (namely Contradica, Lucia, Lotte and others who'se name escapes me at the moment) - it's clear their hearing level increased greatly after being implanted with CI. Almost invariably everyone can hear more than before with their HAs.

Of course there are some unfortunate exceptions like PuyoPiyo, or Smithr, but that's not the CI's fault that the desired hearing level wasn't achieved.
Or maybe the better level of hearing WAS achieved, but comprehension is another story, and some implantees reqqire more work than other.
Usually those with decent spoken language comprehesion do well quite quickly after implantation. This is particularly true for late deafened.

I am pretty sure if you can understand speech now, you would understand even better with CI, But that's my opinion.

Fuzzy
 
Even so, if you read any threads of posts made by CI users and their experiences (namely Contradica, Lucia, Lotte and others who'se name escapes me at the moment) - it's clear their hearing level increased greatly after being implanted with CI. Almost invariably everyone can hear more than before with their HAs.

Of course there are some unfortunate exceptions like PuyoPiyo, or Smithr, but that's not the CI's fault that the desired hearing level wasn't achieved.
Or maybe the better level of hearing WAS achieved, but comprehension is another story, and some implantees reqqire more work than other.
Usually those with decent spoken language comprehesion do well quite quickly after implantation. This is particularly true for late deafened.

I am pretty sure if you can understand speech now, you would understand even better with CI, But that's my opinion.

Fuzzy

Maybe or maybe not but I don't dwell on it. It is not that important to me like it is to some people. I do not want to waste my time asking myself "what if"..takes too much mental energy when I could be focusing on other more important stuff.
 
Maybe or maybe not but I don't dwell on it. It is not that important to me like it is to some people. I do not want to waste my time asking myself "what if"..takes too much mental energy when I could be focusing on other more important stuff.

I agree this is very personal decision - but it's not related to my topic at all.

Fuzzy
 
I agree this is very personal decision - but it's not related to my topic at all.

Fuzzy

The point is I dont feel like I am wasting time with HAs. U did start this thread asking why we are wasting time with HAs and I explained my feelings.
 
That thread Cheri, and many other, would do perfectly well WITHOUT such an assinine comments.
In fact I firmly believe it's because of too many such comments there is such a nasty attitude on AD.


Fuzzy

You're right--Are you gonna practice what you preach? I hope so. :)
 
Even so, if you read any threads of posts made by CI users and their experiences (namely Contradica, Lucia, Lotte and others who'se name escapes me at the moment) - it's clear their hearing level increased greatly after being implanted with CI. Almost invariably everyone can hear more than before with their HAs.

Of course there are some unfortunate exceptions like PuyoPiyo, or Smithr, but that's not the CI's fault that the desired hearing level wasn't achieved.
Or maybe the better level of hearing WAS achieved, but comprehension is another story, and some implantees reqqire more work than other.
Usually those with decent spoken language comprehesion do well quite quickly after implantation. This is particularly true for late deafened.

I am pretty sure if you can understand speech now, you would understand even better with CI, But that's my opinion.

Fuzzy


I don't believe Lotte has ever posted regardingher experience with CI.:dunno2:

Particularly true for late deafened? But I thought you were proposing early implantation of children. Two very different situations.

Almost invariably is quite different from invariably. As a matter of fact almost invariably is a contradiciton in terms.

And, your opinion is, as has been pointed out quite eloquently, has no valid foundation.
 
Back
Top