CI's are just the start-Resistance is futile

[deafdude1]

You are just some guy. I will continue to take advice about my daughter from educated professions, thanks.

Nothing wrong with that, id still like to see the professionals test her for cochlear dead regions using the PTC and/or TEN test. Id also like the professionals to explain why they haven't tried different HAs as well as offering more amplification. If more amplification didn't help, that's one thing. But not to even try and see if it works is another thing.

According to you?!!

An ear hearing at 80db in most frequencies that has no cochlear dead zones is equivalent to CI. If a HA can't help, a CI probably won't be any better. It's like someone who sees 20/200 with the best glasses, no refractive surgery(lasik/prk/intacs/iols) is going to help.

Did you pick 1000 hz out of a hat? Why did you decide it started there?

This is just my estimate. Youll need to have a professional test her for this. The dead zone could start at 500Hz, 750Hz, 1500Hz or so. Then she would be missing all the higher frequencies and some of the mids and it would explain a 20% speech score. More gains could get her score to 50%, still bad by your standards but could be useful for bimodeling(one CI, one HA)

 

[faire_jour]

Nothing wrong with that, id still like to see the professionals test her for cochlear dead regions using the PTC and/or TEN test. Id also like the professionals to explain why they haven't tried different HAs as well as offering more amplification. If more amplification didn't help, that's one thing. But not to even try and see if it works is another thing.



An ear hearing at 80db in most frequencies that has no cochlear dead zones is equivalent to CI. If a HA can't help, a CI probably won't be any better. It's like someone who sees 20/200 with the best glasses, no refractive surgery(lasik/prk/intacs/iols) is going to help.



This is just my estimate. Youll need to have a professional test her for this. The dead zone could start at 500Hz, 750Hz, 1500Hz or so. Then she would be missing all the higher frequencies and some of the mids and it would explain a 20% speech score. More gains could get her score to 50%, still bad by your standards but could be useful for bimodeling(one CI, one HA)

According to you again!

She is doing great, and according to the professionals they can not test for dead zones in a child. I think it was summed up perfectly by her therapist "Whatever took her hearing, took her ability to understand speech. She could hear tones fine, but speech was impossible."

But getting the CI, reversed that. I am sure there are many people out there with the same issue, why do you think it is a worthy cause to advocate AGAINST something that would give them that ability?? Why would you tell a parent to spend years using a hearing aid that could prove partially, or even completely useless? Why NOT give them to opportunity to hear 100%, rather than living with 50%?

 

[Bottesini]

Then that person has auditory processing disorder and would still score 0% with a CI or even stem cells. All he would get is environmental sounds no matter which technology is used.

I don't think that is quite true. I have really bad auditory nerves and no matter how loud, lots of parts of sound are missing.

 

[deafdude1]

According to you again!
She is doing great, and according to the professionals they can not test for dead zones in a child.

Do they have any reasons why? How old must a person be in order to test for dead zones? Ive Googled this and dead zones have been tested on both adults and children. Isn't the psychoacoustic test objective?

Well see if you can test her on the piano thud test. It's not 100% accurate but will give an estimate. Compare her CI alone vs. her HA alone. Good instructions on that test with results of others who took it.

http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/65680-take-piano-thud-test-whats-highest-frequency-you-properly-hear.html

cochlear dead children - Google Search

I think it was summed up perfectly by her therapist "Whatever took her hearing, took her ability to understand speech. She could hear tones fine, but speech was impossible."

So besides dead zones, do they have any other reasons? I am curious to learn about this. Can they try testing her thru filtered speech with different frequency cutoffs and determine if cutting off the highs has any effect? Another option is to drastically reduce the gains/spl in the high frequencies and see if her speech remains the same. For me, any gains above 500-600Hz does not improve my speech score. This means my cochlea is dead to speech except in the low frequencies. For sounds, it's dead to sounds above 1200Hz according to the piano thud test.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rboto/v73n4/en_a16v73n4.pdf

But getting the CI, reversed that. I am sure there are many people out there with the same issue, why do you think it is a worthy cause to advocate AGAINST something that would give them that ability?? Why would you tell a parent to spend years using a hearing aid that could prove partially, or even completely useless? Why NOT give them to opportunity to hear 100%, rather than living with 50%?

We know that a CI worked great for her. We have not yet ruled out every possibility with HAs. I advocate against CI for those who have not ruled out every option with HAs including different HAs, maximum amplification, transposition, etc. It makes no sense costwise and riskwise except as a last resort.

Or the HA could prove mostly or fully useful. One must always err on the side of caution and fully exhaust every last option with HAs before even considering CI. There's no risk to HAs but CI carries risks. There would need to be a very large improvement with CI before risking it. The FDA requires a maximum speech score of 30% for children and 40% to 50% for adults before they qualify for CI. You may think 50% is bad but lipreading can easily fill in the parts that the person misses. 50% without lipreading, 95% with lipreading.

I don't think that is quite true. I have really bad auditory nerves and no matter how loud, lots of parts of sound are missing.

A CI won't work well for you either since a healthy auditory nerve is required. Miss Kat's auditory nerve was fine however.

 

[Bottesini]

A CI won't work well for you either since a healthy auditory nerve is required. Miss Kat's auditory nerve was fine however.

I have already been told that CI would not work, although it was unimportant to me.

I was merely addressing your statement about if aided to 0db or however many, you would understand speech or it means you have CAPD.

CAPD is not the only reason for not understanding speech. I was giving you the example of my bad auditory nerve.

 

[deafdude1]

I have already been told that CI would not work, although it was unimportant to me.

I was merely addressing your statement about if aided to 0db or however many, you would understand speech or it means you have CAPD.

CAPD is not the only reason for not understanding speech. I was giving you the example of my bad auditory nerve.

Thanks. This is why anyone who has so much residual hearing and hears at 30db or better with HAs who still scores poorly in speech needs to suspect the problem may be auditory processing disorder, CAPD, bad auditory nerve, etc. A speech score of 30% may be normal for a 100db loss but not normal for an 80db loss! 80db without cochlear dead regions. If with dead regions then yea 30% may be normal. Dead regions are parts of cochlea with no hair cells. A 2000Hz tone could be "heard" as 1000Hz. See my thread on cochlear dead regions.

 

[jillio]

Auditory processing disorders are a completely different topic from auditory nerve damage. In auditory processing disorders, the problem is not the auditory nerve. In fact, the auditory nerve is healthy, and the individual does not experience hearing loss physiologically. It is not the hearing that is involved, it is the processing of auditory stimuli neurologically that is the problem.

 

[overthepond]

A loss of 80db would not have alot of distortion/recruitment with properly fitting HAs. The exception is if that person has a large cochlear dead zone at perhaps all frequencies above 1000Hz. Then that 80db "response" is phantom, the reality is an infinite loss above 1000Hz. This is what Miss Kat may have. All her responses above 1000Hz are due to cochlear dead zones. It's the best way to explain why she hears so poorly. Phi4sius has functioning hearing to 3500Hz according to the piano thud test so he scores equal or better than CI. If Phi4sius had cochlear dead zones above 1000Hz, his speech score might be only 40% and he could get alot of distortion as well. So yea youd be right if we are talking about dead zones.

I did!!!!!!!!!!

 

[deafdude1]

I did!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't have 80db loss but more like 120db above 1000Hz. Your lows were near 100db. Once you get to 100db the distortion goes up rapidly.

 

[overthepond]

Like I said in other post you DID not state CLEARLY which bloody HZ is db at??? it's all 15 db, 50 db whatsover and nothing on which frequenices....

I DID have 80db loss at lows and still get recuritment.

 

[deafdude1]

Like I said in other post you DID not state CLEARLY which bloody HZ is db at??? it's all 15 db, 50 db whatsover and nothing on which frequenices....

I DID have 80db loss at lows and still get recuritment.

80db loss at 500Hz to 4000Hz unaided can be aided to 10-20db across. Thought your audiogram showed a 90db loss at 250Hz sloping down to 110db at 1000Hz and nothing above that. I have only 70db loss at 250Hz so I don't experience much recruitment in the lows. However at 1000Hz and above I don't hear well. I posted an audiogram in the other post that clearly shows the db and Hz.