Choosing a cochlear implant brand

M

miki

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Hello, I'm a young 21 year old medicine student that is deaf.. I think that im not
having enough with the HA so im certainly sure
I will get implanted( in process of doings the CT scan and such things)

I have a question... There are INDEPENDENT studies
showing speech comparision charts and such between the brands? Everything seems some biased or studies founded by one brand...
You can give your personal opinion too.
please let me know if is allowed to talk about this..
I did extensive research and my main bet by far
is AB. ( my ORL told me that they only did Cochlear but is a lie, since i contacted AB and they said that they did AB brand too in my hospital)

Also i'm a long time lurker here and i dont need that the user Hoichi posts something against CI. is just irrational fear to
being excluded. Just grow up. i dont sign and i have my real difficulties sometimes, but you get the joy of knowing a multiple of people and their ideas and being capable to comunicate to everyone.

Also sorry for my english, I'm from Barcelona, Spain.

Thank you much!
 
I posted a thread before about the "Myth" that any one implant company has better technology. Rather they each use different approaches to design and programming. I can tell you that at least for Cochlear, the hardware and software is far ahead of the research and current programming knowledge and abilities. In other words there is still tons of room for growth with the N6 processor and the various implant arrays.
I've been involved in CI research studies at Cochlear America's and talked with and discussed with their auditory perception research team on many occasions. One of the things they are currently working on is having bilateral implants wirelessly working together to better localize and process sound.
Also those comparison pages like to tote features and numbers that 99% of recipients well never use even close to the limits. I.e. The simulation rate is one.
My suggestion is buy or borrow and read this book. Be sure it's the second edition. (First has different cover)
32df34e28892f29241c8f9198621122c.jpg

This book covers the latest/current processors from all 3 brands.
It explains every feature of all 3 brand devices and all the programming options as well as what research has found to be optimal programming for recipients. It's factual and non bias. If you are a medical student it will make sense to you.
A lot better than the many biased opinions you will get here.
Personally for me, I would be a toss up between AB and Cochlear if I was doing it all over again.
 
Also keep in mind that if you have decent low end hearing the N6 can function as a CI and Hearing Aid simultaneously.
 
hello!! Thank you very much for answering..

I will try to borrow the book from my university library this monday.

Interesting what you say. I thought that the Cochlear electrodes array was at max capability already since there are 22 electrodes that only can stimulate one by one and AB has a lot of more(virtuals)(Also I understand that our nerve have limits to be stimulated so doesnt matter that much the speed of rates.. but more virtuals electrodes and more features
means more possiblities in the future right?). since I will wear the CI internal part for the next good 15-20y I want to be sure that wont be obsolete soon(even if is 10y) so that is one of my reasons for choosing AB...

Also the acustic stimulation of N6 do you mean the hybrid CI with shorter array? They no longer do that in Europe since induced malformation and ossification of cochlea and the results were not better than the full array...( But i would have been a candidate for that.) If you dont mean that what do you mean? I do not understand how could N6 do that.

One question too.. Whats the point of conserving residual hearing? Would make better hearing with CI or its just to have the chance for
new terapeutical options in the future?

Thank you again!!

And sorry again for my english lol.

Edit: Also one the reasons i want AB is that they are the only brand with access to HA technology that is much wider(more market...) Do you think that is a strong reason!
 
Last edited:
Nope they have a new array for the hybrid system that is the same length. But it's much thinner. Cochlear can stimulate multiple electrodes simultaneously. The #electrodes X PPS = STIMULATION RATE. Research show that 900-1200PPS per electrode works best for most recipients. 10 channels X1200 = 12000 stimulation rate. I had 2400pps on my freedoms and never did well with them. Instant and significant improvement when we changed the PPS to 1200. So those comparison sites show all the big numbers yet virtually no one even uses them. This is marketing hype. Also all 3 brand have very different strategies and methods of programming and stimulation. You can't really do direct comparison in many ways. Virtual electrodes is just a different programming approach. Cochlear can and has researched it and not found it worked as well for their devices. The processor chip is so powerful there is lots of room for advancement of the tech with the current processors from a programming and software perspective. Cochlear is the only company with pre processing sound technology on the chip....
AB is a good product too. Many successful users. As I have Cochlear brand, that's what I know about. Spent a few years in bi-lateral research studies and got to talk a lot about the technical stuff with them. I don't use hearing aids, but thought Cochlear was teaming with Phonak or one of the other companies. If you are getting only one side done, I'd talk to folks who use HA in the other ear as they well have better input.
 
Your doctor may specifically do CI as his preference. But there are probly other doctors in the same building who do AB ... so if you prefer another brand you will have to find the doctor who will do that specific brand.
 
soutthpaw said:
Nope they have a new array for the hybrid system that is the same length. But it's much thinner. Cochlear can stimulate multiple electrodes simultaneously. The #electrodes X PPS = STIMULATION RATE. Research show that 900-1200PPS per electrode works best for most recipients. 10 channels X1200 = 12000 stimulation rate. I had 2400pps on my freedoms and never did well with them. Instant and significant improvement when we changed the PPS to 1200. So those comparison sites show all the big numbers yet virtually no one even uses them. This is marketing hype. Also all 3 brand have very different strategies and methods of programming and stimulation. You can't really do direct comparison in many ways. Virtual electrodes is just a different programming approach. Cochlear can and has researched it and not found it worked as well for their devices. The processor chip is so powerful there is lots of room for advancement of the tech with the current processors from a programming and software perspective. Cochlear is the only company with pre processing sound technology on the chip....
AB is a good product too. Many successful users. As I have Cochlear brand, that's what I know about. Spent a few years in bi-lateral research studies and got to talk a lot about the technical stuff with them. I don't use hearing aids, but thought Cochlear was teaming with Phonak or one of the other companies. If you are getting only one side done, I'd talk to folks who use HA in the other ear as they well have better input.
Click to expand...

Phonak is teamed with AB — all part of the same corporation any more.
 
Jane B. said:
Phonak is teamed with AB — all part of the same corporation any more.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. For the OP. Have you contacted Cochlear in your area and asked to talk, meet with a patient liaison person. They can give you lots of info. Come back here after and ask more questions. We will try and filter out the marketing hype and help you in your choice.
 
soutthpaw said:
Nope they have a new array for the hybrid system that is the same length. But it's much thinner. Cochlear can stimulate multiple electrodes simultaneously. The #electrodes X PPS = STIMULATION RATE. Research show that 900-1200PPS per electrode works best for most recipients. 10 channels X1200 = 12000 stimulation rate. I had 2400pps on my freedoms and never did well with them. Instant and significant improvement when we changed the PPS to 1200. So those comparison sites show all the big numbers yet virtually no one even uses them. This is marketing hype. Also all 3 brand have very different strategies and methods of programming and stimulation. You can't really do direct comparison in many ways. Virtual electrodes is just a different programming approach. Cochlear can and has researched it and not found it worked as well for their devices. The processor chip is so powerful there is lots of room for advancement of the tech with the current processors from a programming and software perspective. Cochlear is the only company with pre processing sound technology on the chip....
AB is a good product too. Many successful users. As I have Cochlear brand, that's what I know about. Spent a few years in bi-lateral research studies and got to talk a lot about the technical stuff with them. I don't use hearing aids, but thought Cochlear was teaming with Phonak or one of the other companies. If you are getting only one side done, I'd talk to folks who use HA in the other ear as they well have better input.
Click to expand...

Cochlear's internal device to this day cannot stimulate multiple electrodes simultaneously. That requires multiple power sources. Cochlear's device has one. The current steering involved in virtual channels requires multiple power sources. Cochlear may have dabbled with the idea in a lab, but it cannot be done on the currently available device.

Virtual Channels as marketing is like comparing SD TV to HD and calling it marketing. The tech is very real as well as the quality difference. You're going to be able to watch TV on both, but there is noticeably more definition with HD.

It won't affect speech discrimination just as HD doesn't increase facial recognition. Still, AB users overwhelmingly prefer the full 120 channels. The difference between that and 16 channels is very obvious. It is more natural sounding.

While not FDA approved yet, AB's Electro Aucoustic equipment is already in place with existing users. The Mid Scala is both a standard array and "hybrid" ready array. Current and new users with residual hearing will be able to take advantage of the new Q90 processor's acoustic Phonak hearing aid ability upon approval, adding an additional dimension to their hearing. A candidate doesn't need to wait for approval.

There is also the fact that due to the current steering capabilities of AB's internal, channels can be steered deeper into the cochlea for low frequencies. If a recipient winds up losing their residual low-frequency hearing, it can be replaced with direct stimulation. This is impossible with Cochlear's L24 hybrid array. Once the residual hearing is gone, it's gone.

Current steering is available only with Med El and AB.

Cochlear's most commonly used strategy is based on a simple 8 electrode approach based off of CIS. I must admit I did like using 8 electrodes when I tried using an older strategy for a while. The difference is those 8 electrodes in play are roved up and down the length of the array in Cochlear's device. (Each electrode fires one after another in a sequence of 8 electrodes before repeating the sequence and moving the 8 active electrodes up or down the array depending on the most prominent frequencies heard at the moment.)
 
I just got my 2nd CI. Since the one I received 9 yrs ago was a Cochlear on the left, I went with the same on the right. Cant wait for activation in a couple weeks!

What I told my daughter when she was deciding (her audi was pushing for AB vs Cochlear) is look at what they offer that YOU may want, the bells and whistles. To me they all do a great job helping people hear, which I wont argue with. But what they offer extra might be what you want now.

here in the US those external blue-tooth things were already approved for Cochlear, the other 2 were going through the process (may be done now). So she went with Cochlear, size of processors was also a concern she had. :) Go with the one You want, if you like what you see about AB go for it!
 
AB has hands down the best technology on the market. Cochlear is in a distant 3rd. Many audis prefer Cochlear because that is what they are used to dealing with. Cochlear is fine for someone that has never had hearing or has had little hearing over their lifetime, but if you have had success with HA's or where late deafened, Cochlear just can't provide the array of sound that AB can. Accessories asides, it's what is in your head that counts and AB is the best.

http://cochlearimplanthelp.com/
 
jag said:
here in the US those external blue-tooth things were already approved for Cochlear, the other 2 were going through the process (may be done now). So she went with Cochlear, size of processors was also a concern she had. :) Go with the one You want, if you like what you see about AB go for it!
Click to expand...

Advanced Bionics Naida Q70 was the first CI processor with wireless and Bluetooth streaming on the market, available immediately upon processor release in the fall of 2013.

Cochlear rushed the N6 out to compete with AB's release of the Q70, but had significant delays in getting both approval for the wireless streaming as well as getting the software ready for release. FDA approval wasn't received until a year after AB already had their wireless system out and then did not have the software available to enable streaming until February of this year.
 
Hey, its confirmed i'm a candidate for CI. I bought the book but didnt have time to read it yet...

In my Hospital they only do Cochlear but if I ask they may consider AB(i will probably ask tomorrow) but Im in doubt for ever(so many diferent opinions..)

I really just want the most advanced internal(the array and such) since i will have it inside my head for the next 20-30 years at least.(again diferents opinions on this topic but seems AB wins on that)

thanks !
 
BleedingPurist said:
Advanced Bionics Naida Q70 was the first CI processor with wireless and Bluetooth streaming on the market, available immediately upon processor release in the fall of 2013.

Cochlear rushed the N6 out to compete with AB's release of the Q70, but had significant delays in getting both approval for the wireless streaming as well as getting the software ready for release. FDA approval wasn't received until a year after AB already had their wireless system out and then did not have the software available to enable streaming until February of this year.
Click to expand...

When you say wireless does this still require a neck loop or can it connect directly to the device? Reason i ask is my Phonak hearing aids require the neckloop while my Resound hearing aids can connect directly to my phone with no loop at all.
 
sappstter said:
When you say wireless does this still require a neck loop or can it connect directly to the device? Reason i ask is my Phonak hearing aids require the neckloop while my Resound hearing aids can connect directly to my phone with no loop at all.
Click to expand...

The Phonak ComPilot is still the streamer used today. The neckloop provides the connection to the processor. While Resound's system does not use a loop, it still must be near your body for reliable streaming to the hearing device and it's comparable product to the ComPilot, the PhoneClip+, does not have an Aux input as Phonak's product does.

Phonak and AB have already announced they are moving on to a 2.4 completely wireless platform for the next generation.
 
Back
Top