CI is Advanced Hearing Aid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Messages
15,787
Reaction score
298
Since the other thread was closed.......
there you go misleading others that CI is a advanced HA when it is NOT! sheesh we, CI users have debunked that many times..
Click to expand...
I said ESSENTAILLY!!!! I KNOW the two don't WORK the same, but the END result is the same! HA and CI both are hearing assistive devices.....CI doesn't amplify, but it does improve hearing, like a HA can. CI folks can be classifed as hoh, just like people with severe-profound losses who are sucessful HA users can be classifed as hoh. The end result is the same.........it improves people's hearing!
 
:hmm:

you said that The end result is the same

I disagree on that

CI doesn't improve hearing.. it provides users with a completely different way of hearing than the user's old natural hearing . just my opinion

Hearing aid improves residual hearing but CI replaces it completely
 
deafdyke said:
Since the other thread was closed.......
I said ESSENTAILLY!!!! I KNOW the two don't WORK the same, but the END result is the same! HA and CI both are hearing assistive devices.....CI doesn't amplify, but it does improve hearing, like a HA can. CI folks can be classifed as hoh, just like people with severe-profound losses who are sucessful HA users can be classifed as hoh. The end result is the same.........it improves people's hearing!
Click to expand...

improves for some people with HA yes for some only.. small percentages.. in my honest opinions that in my thoughts-- why.. When I had my CI hooked up way back in summer of '01 I couldn't functions AT all on my unimplant ear with HA.
so for years I had to focus on getting my middle child to go thru his thoughout with his chemo and radiations, then i took care of my 3rd child until he start headstart, Once I got another implant in my right ear. I could pick it up more than I did in past quicker... ANyhow we all KNEW it is devices that we use them but it is a best thing that we could get is.. cochlear implants for anyone who could use these for their sakes! for many reason...
at the end result it is NOT SAME at all for these HA and CI it basically does nothing to compare the same at all either!

wendy
who give a hoot who can rebuttal back at me when I have no freaking times to post back
 
Can someone create a new thread without addressing/mentioning anyone, please? Also, remember that members are entitled to their opinions, but when they vehemently disagree they should take it outside of AD.

Thanks.
 
I tend to disagree that the disagreement on issues like saying a CI and HA are ESSENTAILLY! the same.

They both provide hearing access but the way the do so and the results are very much not essentially the same. While the brain can assimilate the sound to that which it remembers, but it is so much more then any hearing aid can provide.

The person saying they are 'essentially the same' needs to have it pointed out that they need to be careful of how they say what they are trying to say. Sometimes we all need to re read what we've typed to make sure it is accurate. Feelings don't come into the Ci and HA being equal or 'essentially the same' . First hand knowledge does.
 
jag said:
I tend to disagree that the disagreement on issues like saying a CI and HA are ESSENTAILLY! the same.

They both provide hearing access but the way the do so and the results are very much not essentially the same. While the brain can assimilate the sound to that which it remembers, but it is so much more then any hearing aid can provide.

The person saying they are 'essentially the same' needs to have it pointed out that they need to be careful of how they say what they are trying to say. Sometimes we all need to re read what we've typed to make sure it is accurate. Feelings don't come into the Ci and HA being equal or 'essentially the same' . First hand knowledge does.
Click to expand...

I think DD was saying that the outcome is the same, not the devise. The outcome is improved sound perception. The variance is in degree.
 
Yes, thank you jillo. that's what I was saying.....
CI doesn't improve hearing.. it provides users with a completely different way of hearing than the user's old natural hearing
Click to expand...
Good point. However, you could ALSO say that for HA, or BAHA. Those of us who are dhh don't hear like a hearing person does. There is this story in An Anthropologist on Mars, by Oliver Sacks about a blind guy who had an operation to become sighted.. He could see....but it wasn't the way sighted people think of, when they think of seeing. It was more of a low vision idea of seeing.
Hearing aids and CIs give dhh folks some access to sound.....so the end result is the same. They don't sound the same obviously. But someone who's a severe-profounder, but who's hoh with hearing aids has essentially the same access to sound as someone who's hoh with CI......Do you guys see now? Just wanted to clarify that.
 
I have to agree with Highlands on this.

HA ampifity and improves whatever hearing you have while the CI complelety replaces it with it own electron signal to your cochelar audio nerves. Nothing is improved with CI other than it bypasses the need for eardrum etc and the signal are sent directly to the audio nerves.

Only improvement one can see on CI in future is that if there are electrons and offer more channels allowing more audio nerves to be simulated ie more frequcey ranges of sounds.


.
 
Yes, and the fact that CIs for the most part replaces natural hearing with artificial hearing is not something to be taken lightly, even if the natural hearing is not as good as normal hearing.

So they might try and achieve the same aim (allowing deaf to hear) but are directed at different groups of deaf people. The CI for those who only get limited or no benefit from HAs, whereas the HA optimally performs best for those with mild and moderate losses.
 
Sigh.....you guys are missing the point. I know that both CI and HA work differently from each other. My point is that while they acheive "hearing" in different ways, they both create hearing. Its exactly like the way, electricity can be created by different means, such as wind, hydro etc.....but despite the different sources the electricity is the same. Now does everyone see what I'm saying?
Oh and the title is very inaccurate. I know the CI isn't an advanced HA.
 
or like the way that there are different manufactors of CIs. Although they are made by different companies, the end result is the same.
 
deafdyke said:
Sigh.....you guys are missing the point. I know that both CI and HA work differently from each other. My point is that while they acheive "hearing" in different ways, they both create hearing. Its exactly like the way, electricity can be created by different means, such as wind, hydro etc.....but despite the different sources the electricity is the same. Now does everyone see what I'm saying?
Oh and the title is very inaccurate. I know the CI isn't an advanced HA.
Click to expand...

We get your point, it is you who seems not to understand that others are telling you that you are wrong. A HA does not "create" hearing, is merely amplifies sound. Instead of merely repeating cliches and waiting for your friends to bail you out, why not listen to what those who understand the difference between HAs and CIs are telling you. Instead of persistently arguing an inaccurate point, you might actually learn something worthy of repeating.
Rick
 
Also, when you realize how CIs can be programed to reduce and/or eliminate background noises, to focus on speech, etc. then you begin to realize how markedly different a CI is from a HA
 
Outcomes are still the same. The variance is in degree.
 
deafdyke said:
Sigh.....you guys are missing the point. I know that both CI and HA work differently from each other. My point is that while they acheive "hearing" in different ways, they both create hearing. Its exactly like the way, electricity can be created by different means, such as wind, hydro etc.....but despite the different sources the electricity is the same. Now does everyone see what I'm saying?
Oh and the title is very inaccurate. I know the CI isn't an advanced HA.
Click to expand...

I would have to say that the only part you have correct is they both help on have better hearing differently. They both do NOT create hearing.

The hearing I had from HA's was natural hearing, just amplified to become somewhat understandable.

The hearing created with the CI IS created. It's created by the stimulation of the hearing nerves and not through amplification. It can sound completely natural to the person wearing one. But it is artificial or created.
 
HA and CI can not be the same. If they were the same then I should have recieved the same results with a HA as with CIs. Using the most powerful hearing aid should have given the same results as CIs, they don't.

The cochlea is damaged, so it is impossible for hearing in some frequencies. Hearing should also sound the same with hearing aids as well as with cis, but it does not. So they are not the same. I have 27 years experience with hearing aids and they are not the same except they are used for sound.
 
vallee said:
HA and CI can not be the same. If they were the same then I should have recieved the same results with a HA as with CIs. Using the most powerful hearing aid should have given the same results as CIs, they don't.

The cochlea is damaged, so it is impossible for hearing in some frequencies. Hearing should also sound the same with hearing aids as well as with cis, but it does not. So they are not the same. I have 27 years experience with hearing aids and they are not the same except they are used for sound.
Click to expand...

DD is not saying they are the same. She is saying the outcome is the same. Improved sound perception. HA improves natural hearing through amplification. CI improves the natural hearing of the deaf by bypassing the cochlea and stimulating the 8th cranial nerve directly. The outcpome of both are that the deaf person using HA has a greater degree of sound perception than without the HA, and the CI implanted person has a greater degree of hearing than without the CI. Both improve on natural conditions. The variance is in degree of improvement. But both offer improvement depending upon the individual.
 
jillio said:
Outcomes are still the same. The variance is in degree.
Click to expand...

People need to be careful when saying that they both create sound. they don't.

Yes they both allow the deaf to hear but they do not do it in the same way. The HA amplifies (and can cause distortion) and the CI directly stimulates the hearing nerve causing the brain to hear sound. This means the CI is creating sound in an artificial way.

DD stated they both create sound. She did not simply state that they both help hear, but that they both created sound, the point is they are not the same, only one creates sound through bypassing the ears natural hearing, a connection that is completely artificial.

Yes I could hear with HA's, using my natural hearing system amplified. (not created) I can also hear with the implant but using an artificial path to the hearing nerve. (artificially created)

She can state that both provide access to sound but when she begins to compare them as the same or stating that both 'create sound' then it's time to clarify the myth that she's trying to pass on.
 
jag said:
People need to be careful when saying that they both create sound. they don't.

Yes they both allow the deaf to hear but they do not do it in the same way. The HA amplifies (and can cause distortion) and the CI directly stimulates the hearing nerve causing the brain to hear sound. This means the CI is creating sound in an artificial way.

DD stated they both create sound. She did not simply state that they both help hear, but that they both created sound, the point is they are not the same, only one creates sound through bypassing the ears natural hearing, a connection that is completely artificial.

Yes I could hear with HA's, using my natural hearing system amplified. (not created) I can also hear with the implant but using an artificial path to the hearing nerve. (artificially created)

She can state that both provide access to sound but when she begins to compare them as the same or stating that both 'create sound' then it's time to clarify the myth that she's trying to pass on.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They don't work in the same way. (See my post #18). I can see where the confusion was coming from. That's why I tried to clarify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top