Hearing aids aren't like glasses for those who are deaf.

souggy said:

But wearing hearing aids means you have PERFECT HEARING SO THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU CANNOT HEAR EVERY SINGLE WORD I YELL AT YOU IN YOUR EAR! IF YOU STILL MISS OUT ON WHAT I AM SAYING, YOU ARE STUPID!

Sorry... but honestly, that is what uneducated people think of those that wear hearing aids. They don't understand "dead zones." So you are still "deaf" if you have dead zones. Hearing impaired have a cultural meaning of "amplified perfect hearing."

Click to expand...

This reply was so good, I decided it deserved a thread of it's own!

Hearing aids aren't like glasses for those with losses in the severe to profound ranges. Even with maximum amplification, I can't be aided to normal except in the lowest frequencies where my loss isn't so deep. Then there's the quality issue. It does sound normal to me since I have nothing better to compare to. But I do know I can't understand speech perfectly and even with reading lips, im only up to 80%. You also stand correct about cochlear dead zones. No HA can help if you have no residual hearing. Transposition is great for some people, even cochlear implants can be great if 100% of your cochlea is just one big dead zone and all you get is vibrotactile responses with HAs.

From a slideshow ive seen, those with mild losses function quite well unaided and HAs only give a slight improvement. Many don't bother much or at all with HAs due to the inconviences/hassles/cost of HAs. They hear way better than almost anyone with CI.

Those with moderate losses hear little speech and only louder sounds unaided. But aided with the proper HAs programmed properly they can be amplified down to the 0-10db range and hear comparable to a hearing person hearing unaided at 10-20db which is on the lower range of normal hearing.

Severe losses hear no speech and only the loudest sounds unaided. With powerful HAs, they hear similar to someone with an unaided mild loss, but often still hear better than those with CI. They should hear in the 10-30db range when fully aided. This is the case for me in the low frequencies where my loss is severe.

The worst losses are profound losses They are deaf unaided and even aided, the best they hear is usually no better than 30db. With powerful HAs, they hear aided similar to what those with moderate losses hear unaided! A CI can sometimes be of benefit for those with losses exceeding 100db.

Those opting to get cochlear implants hear aided what those with mild, moderate or severe losses hear unaided according to that slideshow. However from what ive seen, almost everyone with CI hears better than an unaided severe loss and most in fact hear better than an unaided moderate loss. They also point out that CI is an option for those with total losses(no residual hearing) that way you don't risk hearing worse than HAs and you aren't risking any residual hearing because youve got none!

Think of it as the analogy to someone with profound, pathological myopia. The eye is badly enlongated and misshapen and the retina stretched out and damaged. He may be corrected to perhaps 20/40 at best with many having mild low vision of perhaps 20/100 with the best glasses.

I think that if you have a look at the whole picture, it's perfectly true that if you can hear 20/30db or better in some frequencies you do better than the most of CIers IN THOSE FREQUENCIES, the point is that usually people with severe or profound hearing losses, can reach that level in the lows, optimistically 40db and better from 500-750 down. Still it is extremely rare to benefit from 1000 up. That means loosing a significant part of the sound world and an important part of the speech banana.
The most of CI users do not probably reach 20db in any of the frequencies, but can easily stay at the mild/moderate HL level (30-40db) throughout all the audiogram. Add the possibility of bimodal hearing (HA on the other ear) and I do not see how the CI cannot be considered superior to HA for profound, severe and maybe for moderate/severe hearing losses.
I mean, loosing something in the lows, while beginning hearing from 2000 up does not translate necessarily in a worst quality of the hearing. Of course nothing is better than the hairy cells, but there will be much to discover from the new frequencies.
The major objection here is how much different it would be and it would be probably pretty much different, at least at the beginning.

This is generally speaking, from the pure point of view of the technological advantage, without considering opportunities, risks and all the other disadvantages of CI.

Statistics can be interpreted and often they do not really refelcts the reality completely, anyway it is like 20% of profound HL children succeds in developing intelligible speech by using HAs, this increase to 90% if implanted around 2yr-old, 80% if implanted before being 4yr-old. Although everything is questionable, the difference is pretty clear and state the technological advantage of CI over HA even for people with some usable residual.

Finally, if you are in that 20% HA success and you are reasonably happy with your speech understanding/production, there is no reason to go for a CI. The point arises for a parent who is going to choose for his child having severe/profound HL. You cannot know from the beginning if your child can be in the happy 20% (and of course he/she could be in the 10% of CI failure also). Moreover, even if it could be a success HA story, a reasonable expectation is seeing yous child to develop some language and comprehension and the maximum hope is seeing him being able to understand 80% or more with lipreading. In case of CI the expectations could be the same, but hope is allowed to go much further (100% without lipreading? phone usage? ...).
These differences cannot be denied and must be considered very carefully.

You do realize... that the post I made was meant to stir up harboured upset feelings that many people carry?

Good topic for people that don't understand hearing aids (or CI, or stem cells) are not perfect, which for some reason the mainstream think it does.

Statistics can be interpreted and often they do not really refelcts the reality completely, anyway it is like 20% of profound HL children succeds in developing intelligible speech by using HAs, this increase to 90% if implanted around 2yr-old, 80% if implanted before being 4yr-old. Although everything is questionable, the difference is pretty clear and state the technological advantage of CI over HA even for people with some usable residual.

Click to expand...

You have sources for those statistic? I didn't have hearing aids until I was six. Didn't learn how to speak until 8 or 9. Now a lot of people pick me, even though I fall flat in certain areas, because I am considered as a better charismatic speaker than most phonetically-correct people.

Just like glasses do NOT restore perfect vision to many, hearing aids are the same. They do NOT restore perfect hearing to many. That said, there are also many that will get back to 20/20 vision or normal hearing with glasses and aids. Everyone is different and everyone will have a different outcome. Anyone that doesn't understand that should do some research.

deafdude1 said:

From a slideshow ive seen, those with mild losses function quite well unaided and HAs only give a slight improvement. Many don't bother much or at all with HAs due to the inconviences/hassles/cost of HAs. They hear way better than almost anyone with CI.

Those with moderate losses hear little speech and only louder sounds unaided. But aided with the proper HAs programmed properly they can be amplified down to the 0-10db range and hear comparable to a hearing person hearing unaided at 10-20db which is on the lower range of normal hearing.

Severe losses hear no speech and only the loudest sounds unaided. With powerful HAs, they hear similar to someone with an unaided mild loss, but often still hear better than those with CI. They should hear in the 10-30db range when fully aided. This is the case for me in the low frequencies where my loss is severe.

The worst losses are profound losses They are deaf unaided and even aided, the best they hear is usually no better than 30db. With powerful HAs, they hear aided similar to what those with moderate losses hear unaided! A CI can sometimes be of benefit for those with losses exceeding 100db.

Click to expand...

Thanks deafdude1. This information was so helpful that I'm going to show it to my hearing friends and family.

deafdude1 said:

This reply was so good, I decided it deserved a thread of it's own!

From a slideshow ive seen, those with mild losses function quite well unaided and HAs only give a slight improvement. Many don't bother much or at all with HAs due to the inconviences/hassles/cost of HAs. They hear way better than almost anyone with CI.

Click to expand...

This isn't always the case at all. Many children with mild losses have trouble telling words apart, and they have trouble hearing in noise.

And where did you get the bit I underlined? You just passing your opinion off as fact??

faire_jour said:

This isn't always the case at all. Many children with mild losses have trouble telling words apart, and they have trouble hearing in noise.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Even the most mild hearing loss translates to functional total deafness in noisy environments.

rockdrummer said:

Just like glasses do NOT restore perfect vision to many, hearing aids are the same. They do NOT restore perfect hearing to many. That said, there are also many that will get back to 20/20 vision or normal hearing with glasses and aids. Everyone is different and everyone will have a different outcome. Anyone that doesn't understand that should do some research.

Click to expand...

Exactly!! Glasses does not restore perfect vision. Nor does hearing aids restore perfect hearing.


Many people do seem to think otherwise.

From a slideshow ive seen, those with mild losses function quite well unaided and HAs only give a slight improvement. Many don't bother much or at all with HAs due to the inconviences/hassles/cost of HAs. They hear way better than almost anyone with CI.

Those with moderate losses hear little speech and only louder sounds unaided. But aided with the proper HAs programmed properly they can be amplified down to the 0-10db range and hear comparable to a hearing person hearing unaided at 10-20db which is on the lower range of normal hearing.

Severe losses hear no speech and only the loudest sounds unaided. With powerful HAs, they hear similar to someone with an unaided mild loss, but often still hear better than those with CI. They should hear in the 10-30db range when fully aided. This is the case for me in the low frequencies where my loss is severe.

The worst losses are profound losses They are deaf unaided and even aided, the best they hear is usually no better than 30db. With powerful HAs, they hear aided similar to what those with moderate losses hear unaided! A CI can sometimes be of benefit for those with losses exceeding 100db.



Deaf Dude-- this is interesting info.

Question: I was reading other posts and I can't find an old post that I wanted to respond to. I believe it was your post that was inquiring some suggestions as how to possibly train our brains to understand speech so as to possibly prepare for stem cells (if that ever comes out in the next few years). I, too, am interested in doing some auditory training (without having to go to a speech/language therapist). I believe that training our brains to understand speech can possibly help in some situations. Have you gotten any suggestions regarding this?

Babyblue said:

Exactly!! Glasses does not restore perfect vision. Nor does hearing aids restore perfect hearing.


Many people do seem to think otherwise.

Click to expand...

I am in the process of getting hearing aids and this is exactly what I fear dealing with. Hearing aids won't help me hear in noisy environments, nor will they magically make everyone articulate more. Although I wish they did!

HAs only give a slight improvement. Many don't bother much or at all with HAs due to the inconviences/hassles/cost of HAs. They hear way better than almost anyone with CI.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that a lot of mild losses cannot be amplified due to distortion issues.

CJB said:

Thanks deafdude1. This information was so helpful that I'm going to show it to my hearing friends and family.

Click to expand...

I have shown my family information about how to talk to a HOH person ,after a few weeks my famliy forget every thing I said!
My daughter still get up set when she has to let me someting I did not hear!
People would be talking about something and later on I would ask my daughter a question and she will say we just talked about this with so and so! Wrong ,They talked about it , I could not hear a word! and never mind asking my family to talk louder ,they will only for a few min. then they go back to talking soft again !

whatdidyousay! said:

They talked about it , I could not hear a word! and never mind asking my family to talk louder ,they will only for a few min. then they go back to talking soft again !

Click to expand...

I totally understand what you mean. Some of my family has been making an effort to learn about how to talk to me as HOH. But the thing is a lot of the advice doesn't apply to me. I can't read lips, good lighting is useless to me, and I can't use body language and facial expressions to tell what they mean. So the advice they should be reading in my case is about deafblind people, so I've linked them to it. But they forget that they have to let me know what's going on for me to get what's going on. Or they'll remember to come up to me, tap my hand, and introduce themselves, but they'll introduce themselves as "It's me." I appreciate the effort but lots of times they just don't get it.

souggy said:

You have sources for those statistic? I didn't have hearing aids until I was six. Didn't learn how to speak until 8 or 9. Now a lot of people pick me, even though I fall flat in certain areas, because I am considered as a better charismatic speaker than most phonetically-correct people.

Click to expand...

Well I found the data in a presentation of:

Carol Flexer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
The University of Akron and NOAC
Akron, Ohio USA
Carol Flexer, Ph.D., Audiologist

The pdf can be accessed here:
http://www.hearandsaycentre.com.au/documents/CaroleFlexer-AuditoryBrainDevelopment-AParadigmShiftforChildrenWhoAreDeaforHardofHearing.pdf
She cites several articles from scientific literature. Anyway I do not have the necessary level to understand deeply the value of these references.
I believe she is a reliable researcher.
Anyway statistical data should be carefully analyzed.

All this info is great. Unfortunately, most people, with normal hearing, couldn't care less.

Hask12 said:

All this info is great. Unfortunately, most people, with normal hearing, couldn't care less.

Click to expand...

The same as here we care a little about other types of disabilities... Not surprising, if you are not involved in the thing, you don't care. Nevertheless there are many deaf or hoh people, potentially a big business, thus several corporations actually care!! That's why there is something to do even with the worst of hearing loss, but there is nothing to do for many very bad (and very rare) diseases.

Hask12 said:

All this info is great. Unfortunately, most people, with normal hearing, couldn't care less.

Click to expand...

Friends and family of Deaf/Hoh people should care. I know not all family and friends care, but I imagine at least some do.

ref74 said:

Well I found the data in a presentation of:

Carol Flexer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
The University of Akron and NOAC
Akron, Ohio USA
Carol Flexer, Ph.D., Audiologist

The pdf can be accessed here:
http://www.hearandsaycentre.com.au/documents/CaroleFlexer-AuditoryBrainDevelopment-AParadigmShiftforChildrenWhoAreDeaforHardofHearing.pdf
She cites several articles from scientific literature. Anyway I do not have the necessary level to understand deeply the value of these references.
I believe she is a reliable researcher.
Anyway statistical data should be carefully analyzed.

Click to expand...

But is the "other stuff" in his post in the slide show? Like the idea that people with a severe loss and hearing aids hear better than those with a CI? I don't think so! The reason that isn't there is because it isn't true. The research shows that with a loss greater than 70 db, people function better with a CI than hearing aids.

CJB said:

I am in the process of getting hearing aids and this is exactly what I fear dealing with. Hearing aids won't help me hear in noisy environments, nor will they magically make everyone articulate more. Although I wish they did!

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons why I chose to get CIs. I couldn't understand speech in quiet either, but background noise was also a challenge. Hearing in background noise tends to be one of the major drawbacks to hearing aids and generally people with milder losses (meaning mild or mild-moderate) are able to function better in these environments than those with more severe losses. It would be nice if hearing aid manufacturers could come up with a program that allows the user to automatically adjust how much background noise they would like to hear.

Hear Again said:

This is one of the reasons why I chose to get CIs. I couldn't understand speech in quiet either, but background noise was also a challenge. Hearing in background noise tends to be one of the major drawbacks to hearing aids and generally people with milder losses (meaning mild or mild-moderate) are able to function better in these environments than those with more severe losses. It would be nice if hearing aid manufacturers could come up with a program that allows the user to automatically adjust how much background noise they would like to hear.

Click to expand...

That would be really nice.