1989 HA study showing more gain=better

Bottesini said:
Sometimes it is hard to believe you are the parent of one of us.

You probably would not take it kindly if someone showed your child such disrespect.
Click to expand...

He is a grown man who insists on posting outdated material again and again, trying to prove himself right. He refuses to acknowledge the facts that even HIS OWN posts show. When posed questions all his answers are prefaced by "My dad says..."

It is beyond ridiculous. It passed ridiculous 300 posts ago.

And as for "forgetting history", I don't think that applies to technology. Should we go back to black and white tv's because people who had them in the 50's gave them "a rating of excellent in picture quality"? Of course not. That was great for the time but our technology has advanced far past that point.
 
faire_jour said:
He is a grown man who insists on posting outdated material again and again, trying to prove himself right. He refuses to acknowledge the facts that even HIS OWN posts show. When posed questions all his answers are prefaced by "My dad says..."

It is beyond ridiculous. It passed ridiculous 300 posts ago.

And as for "forgetting history", I don't think that applies to technology. Should we go back to black and white tv's because people who had them in the 50's gave them "a rating of excellent in picture quality"? Of course not. That was great for the time but our technology has advanced far past that point.
Click to expand...

Re-inventions do occur though, especially when people forgot how the old technology works. I don't think the paper is useless. It is useful if you're studying the history of auditory equipment, and some of the results that could be useful for future research.

The problem is that people tend to take things out of context to support their own mandate.
 
My hubby is an electrical engineer. No matter what the technology, it's all circuits. Our HAs and CIs too!
 
They must be studying me :) as I was a child in the 80's a preteen in '89

I still remember the song "u can't touch this"
 
deafdude1 said:
Ask anyone questions. The professionals in that article demonstrated that sufficient gains is required in order to get to the speech banana. They showed that most with severe hearing loss got some benefits from HAs but that most with profound losses could not get into the speech banana. This was true in 1989, but today HAs can dish out 70db gain so even someone with 100db HL can easily get into the speech banana.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't it work for me. I had tried every possible HA available in 2008 and still doesn't benefit from them! I am getting far more benefit from my CI. I am now at my friend's house for long weekend, she has 2 year old little girl whom i haven't seen for 4 months and I am picking up what she's saying without lipreading!! This i would never achieve if i was still wearing HA's.
 
overthepond said:
Then why didn't it work for me. I had tried every possible HA available in 2008 and still doesn't benefit from them! I am getting far more benefit from my CI. I am now at my friend's house for long weekend, she has 2 year old little girl whom i haven't seen for 4 months and I am picking up what she's saying without lipreading!! This i would never achieve if i was still wearing HA's.
Click to expand...

Some of the speech banana is as high as 20-25 db at 6000 hz. Deafdude, do yoy know of any hearing aid that can bring a profound loss above that? You need to be able to UNDERSTAND those phoenomes not just detect a tone at that level. Can the aids bring them up to where they can discriminatw "sss" vs "zzz" and hear "f" and "th"?

I don't think so.
 
Hearing sound doesn't mean understanding speech.

If you boil down the paper to what it's really intended for, it's pretty straightforward. All it says is that with increased volume, presuming that the cochlear can still react at the frequencies, eventually sound could be "heard". However, it's way different from understanding sound since it could very well be a loud jumble of sound. The paper itself concedes that.

Getting to the speech banana is great, but there's still the issue of being able to differentiate the sounds and understanding speech context within the sounds. Understanding speech was not covered by the paper. Hence, we can't debate on speech perception using the paper as a foundational argument one way or another.

To go to the extreme, here's an example of where more volume may be detrimental:
Going to a heavy metal concert and standing next to the speakers - I definitely still would not be able to understand the words being sung. But, I would hear the sounds of the instrument play (providing that it's not in my NR zones)
 
Those that think the old study has no value may be forgetting it is important to learn from the past.
Click to expand...
VERY TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And as for "forgetting history", I don't think that applies to technology. Should we go back to black and white tv's because people who had them in the 50's gave them "a rating of excellent in picture quality"? Of course not. That was great for the time but our technology has advanced far past that point.
Click to expand...
Ah, no. BUT on the other hand.......
back then audis and AG Bell types claimed that ALL dhh kids could significently benifit from the best most modren hearing aids.
 
Back
Top