Cochlear implant clues

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,160
Reaction score
7
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsears054540005dec05,0,3560681.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

Hearing study in cats born deaf helps show why the nerve-stimulating devices are 80 percent successful in children but rarely work in adults

A study in cats demonstrates how cochlear implants in very young animals allow them to develop normal nerve fibers to transmit sound and restore hearing by reversing damage to the brain's hearing network.

The findings by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore help explain why such implants are about 80 percent successful in restoring hearing to young children who are born deaf, but rarely work in adults who are congenitally deaf.

"What we think this study tells parents of deaf children is that if cochlear implants are being considered, the earlier they're done, the better," said David Ryugo, a professor of otolaryngology and neuroscience at Hopkins' Center for Hearing and Balance. He is the lead investigator for the study in Friday's issue of Science.

Cochlear implants are small devices designed to mimic the work of inner-ear structures that react to sound waves and convert tones to electrical nerve signals. Hair cells form a ribbon of vibration sensors along the cochlea, the organ of the inner ear that senses sound. After receiving sonic vibrations through the eardrum and bones of the middle ear, the hair cells convert them to the signals carried to the brain via the auditory nerve.

Unlike hearing aids, which amplify sound through a nerve-to-brain system that may be damaged but still intact, cochlear implants bypass the ear entirely and link right to the nerve cells that interpret sound in the brain.

One part of the device is a microphone located behind the ear that picks up sound and converts it to electrical signals that are transmitted through the scalp to a receiver attached directly to the brain.

More than 10,000 children are born deaf each year in the United States, and an estimated 1.5 million people are believed to be good candidates for cochlear implants. But only a few thousand of the procedures are done each year, with about 10 percent going to children younger than 3.

For the study, Ryugo and colleagues compared the responses and brain tissue of cats born deaf that got coch-lear implants within four months of birth with deaf cats that did not get the implants.

Both groups were exposed to three months of sound stimulation, during which the researchers played music and let the animals roam the lab, with various everyday background noises. Along with three deaf cats with implants and four deaf cats with no implants, they also included three otherwise similar cats with normal hearing as a control group.

To measure the animals' hearing development, all the deaf cats - with or without implants - were subjected to a unique sound, one for each animal, that measured its response to a cue, such as the clapping of hands or ringing of a bell, signifying that there was a food reward nearby.

Within a week, the deaf kittens with implants responded eagerly to the new sound cue, rushing to collect the food, while those without implants did not.

Later, brain-tissue analysis showed that those felines with implants developed regions called synaptic connections between connecting auditory nerve cells that closely resemble those seen in cats with normal hearing. Those connections included large numbers of synaptic vesicles, reservoirs along nerve pathways that store chemicals needed to pass sound signals between nerve cells, and robust membranes that receive the signals.

The deaf cats without implants lacked the reservoirs, and the membrane regions were flat and withered in appearance.

Dr. John Niparko, another ear specialist at Hopkins who took part in the study and who has been studying the effects of hearing restoration on children for more than 20 years, said researchers now need to study the auditory system's development between birth and puberty. Specifically, the research would seek to understand why the possibility of restoring hearing and language skills diminishes during that period.
 
and an estimated 1.5 million people are believed to be good candidates for cochlear implants. But only a few thousand of the procedures are done each year, with about 10 percent going to children younger than 3.
So that means that only about five percent of those kids will be raised strictly oral....does anyone know how much ten percent of a few thousand comes out to? I really do think that some Deafies may have pushed the panic button prematurely. I still think too many people look on the CI as the LATEST GREATEST GOTTA HAVE tReNdY technology. Maybe part of the reason why they are lowering criteria is b/c the traditional pool isn't large enough.....GOOD riddence!
 
I can agree that some people are looking at it as the latest and greatest gotta have it technology. Those types exist anywhere...just think of people who just have to have the latest in computers or cell phones. Having said that, I disagree with you that most people who have them look at it that way. I certainly don't. I think most people look at it as the "last resort" grasp to hear when all other options aren't doing the trick. Probably the majority of the people who get them have had some hearing in the past whether normal or HOH. I have no interest in trying to "sell" it to others but rather let my CI "speak" for itself and answer questions for those who are curious.

I would say not many truly deaf (who are not children) get them given the iffyness of the proposition which the article at the beginning of the thread points out. Obviously, deaf children who are very young would be the most optimal ones for those who have no hearing. Of course, this realm is where most of the controversy exists and I have seen many arguments both pro and con rage here and elsewhere (and really a discussion for another thread).

I think I can really think of several reasons it hasn't been done in greater numbers. The first is that it is very expensive and you really need insurance to assist people in getting it done. I know that fact well it cost me just $2,000 (out of $50,000) due to health insurance. There are very few who can just throw out $50,000 - $100,000 to get one. That is an issue that really needs to be addressed if more CIs are going to be done than at the present rate. Now, I quite aware that you can get unholy alliances between medicine and business (not the first time it happened and certainly not the last either). But look at the benefits to those it has helped... It is a very real and viable solution for many.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that it will work for a given individual. Most of the time, it works pretty well but not for all. Some take to it like a fish to the water (like me and some others). Others have struggles for a while and then they are a going concern. Then there are those it does quite well with environment sounds but they never quite get the hang of speech (and visa versa [probably not common]). From having no hearing to having something is nothing to sneeze at. Now, the last group are those who it gives either no benefit or complications and that it where people tend to focus on. There are no guarantees in life period! Being deaf is no crime and there are ways to function and exist as everybody knows.

Bottom line, it isn't going away and the technology will get better and better. It is amazing what it can do for most now and that is after 30+ years of progress. Who knows what another 30+ years will bring.

Perhaps, this all will be a moot point in the future where they can revive the cochlear hairs and no implants are necessary maybe except in extreme cases.
 
sr17soars........I agree with you, but I still think there are too many tReNdYs in the pool. Yes, many people do look at it as a very last resort thing (and that's GOOD) Listen......go to the chats at hearing exchange, and you'll see what I mean. You'll see why I am just SO sick of the tReNdY "gotta have the latest and greatest technology" folks, and you'll see why I think the hype is out of hand (some of the people there, almost act like they have Asperger's Syndrome in regards to CI....It's ALL they can talk about!)
 
I will follow up on what you mean. I gotta see this for myself :thumb: I need to see what gets your goat so much...

Er...if you would be so kind as to send a PM to me of examples of places as I'm not familiar with them?

Thanks...
 
deafdyke said:
sr17soars........I agree with you, but I still think there are too many tReNdYs in the pool. Yes, many people do look at it as a very last resort thing (and that's GOOD) Listen......go to the chats at hearing exchange, and you'll see what I mean. You'll see why I am just SO sick of the tReNdY "gotta have the latest and greatest technology" folks, and you'll see why I think the hype is out of hand (some of the people there, almost act like they have Asperger's Syndrome in regards to CI....It's ALL they can talk about!)

I can't believe you're equating cochlear implants to something REALLY trendy like tattoos or body piercing. It's NOT trendy if you're not the one making the decision, like the little kids being implanted at a younger age.

I think what you're seeing here is this: Someone gets a cochlear implant, and it's a pretty good success. No one sees this and goes, "Hey, I see Bob got a cochlear implant, I want one just like his." They really go to him, ask questions, talk to experts, get comfortable with the decision, and THEN go for it.

Trendy people don't care about the consequences -- they just want the next thing. 10 years later they regret it because it's no longer cool.

NO ONE I know as an adult getting implanted got it just 'cause. They got it because they evaluated everything and took the next step. 10, 20, 30 years later, they're fine with it because they made the decision with the thought that they'll have it until they die.
 
Dennis....no I didn't mean tReNdY in a tattoo/body piercing way..... I meant it in more of the way that some people absolutly positively MUST have the LATEST MOST modren cell phone or computer. Like I was talking to a guy who had hearing aids, and he could talk and hear fine with them. Yet, he kept going on and on and on about how he wanted a CI.
It's gotten a lot less obvious over the years, but some articles about CIs almost have the same flash and hype language used in descibing them, akin to computer geek magazines which use flash and hype to the extreme.
Yes, a lot of people are healthily skeptical and cynical.....but there's still a population that has bought into the hype.....I mean I read about a guy who was thinking about getting a CI so he could hear better in noise?!?!?!

srs117soars, i don't think i can give you a direct link (be censored) but just go to Hearing Exchange, and then go to the chat room.....ALL they talk about are CIs.....Breezy can back me up on that right hon? ;)
 
Back
Top