CI's.....are they that much better??

Re Reading the posts as well....

...if you have a CI....does it not just switch on in the way a HA does then??

Overthepond is describing having frequencies turned on...is this because of your level of deafness prior to CI and you actually have to learn to comprehend a sound itself?? or is this the norm with everyone with a CI that you have to gradually build up the number of frequencies that you can deal with over a period of time?

There is so much good info and thoughts coming through here for me...I really appreciate your comments.
 
Chalgravesteve said:
Re Reading the posts as well....

...if you have a CI....does it not just switch on in the way a HA does then??

Overthepond is describing having frequencies turned on...is this because of your level of deafness prior to CI and you actually have to learn to comprehend a sound itself?? or is this the norm with everyone with a CI that you have to gradually build up the number of frequencies that you can deal with over a period of time?

There is so much good info and thoughts coming through here for me...I really appreciate your comments.
Click to expand...


Kind of switch on like a HA. AB and Med El has a "switch" very similar to HA. Cochlear Freedom has a button (mainly because it's water resistant so it looks like "a skin"). Some AB users complained about the volume or switch controls when they're rubbed against it, it moves.

Frequeuencies - The majority of the deaf do not hear anything at the high frequency, so when the CI is switched on and you're hearing the high frequencies a little bit louder it's because the ear has never been exposed to it. This is exactly why I always encourage people to wear a HA in the implanted ear, even though you may or may not hear much. It is giving the hair cell nerves exposure, so it won't cause too much fustration after activation.

For me, it took a week to 2 weeks for the high frequencies to sound a little bit quiet. Until my first map, everything sounded wonderful, and "normal". For many people it takes several maps. Some love hearing the highs, some prefer the lows (I prefer the lows). That's why many of us go for quite a lot of mapping the first year, then things starts to sound great.
 
It not just about hearing MORE with CIs. It about hearing the details of sound with CI.
Click to expand...
TechBill, if you hear MORE then you can hear the details of sound. Make sense?
 
deafdyke said:
TechBill, if you hear MORE then you can hear the details of sound. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Maybe the better terminology would be "better with clarity". It's not that you can hear more, that's the issue. I can hear "more" with BTE than ITE, but not "better". Make sense? That's what TechBill is trying to say.

You don't hear "more" with CI, you hear better.
 
LadySekhmet said:
Maybe the better terminology would be "better with clarity". It's not that you can hear more, that's the issue. I can hear "more" with BTE than ITE, but not "better". Make sense? That's what TechBill is trying to say.

You don't hear "more" with CI, you hear better.
Click to expand...


Yes exactly what LadySekhmet said. She can word it better than I can and thanks LadySekhmet!

.
 
deafdyke said:
TechBill, if you hear MORE then you can hear the details of sound. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Let me put it in another way.

If you could hear just good enough with a hearing aid then you will never quaifty or even be a candidate for CI.

Anyone who is a candidate for a CI is not going to hear MORE with a hearing aid no matter how powerful the aid is.

So therefore if a person is a candidate for CI then that mean thier hearing loss is so servered that obviously a hearing aid is not going to help them any more than a CI will help them.



.
 
LadySekhmet said:
Maybe the better terminology would be "better with clarity". It's not that you can hear more, that's the issue. I can hear "more" with BTE than ITE, but not "better". Make sense? That's what TechBill is trying to say.

You don't hear "more" with CI, you hear better.
Click to expand...

you are so right.

You really can't compare Ha and CIs. It is impossible. The sound, the clarity, and just about everything is different. A CI gives a complete sound. You pick up all the sounds in the room, not just the focus sound. With me, a HA was very painful to wear, I don't have that with my CIs. I can wear morning to night and it never bother me.
 
TechBill said:
If you could hear just good enough with a hearing aid then you will never qualify or even be a candidate for CI.

Anyone who is a candidate for a CI is not going to hear MORE with a hearing aid no matter how powerful the aid is.

So therefore if a person is a candidate for CI then that mean thier hearing loss is so servered that obviously a hearing aid is not going to help them any more than a CI will help them.
Click to expand...

Is that just your opinion, or do you know that for a fact? I ask only because I've been seriously considering getting a CI. I DO hear plenty of sounds with a hearing aid (I am at 100 db loss, and at about 30-40 with the HAs.) But my speech discrimination is about zero. I am not looking at getting a CI for improved volume since I can get that with a hearing aid; I am looking for the clarity (like LadySekhmet said) and improved speech discrimination.
 
I believe that is not the case anymore...i've heard more lately it's based on speech discrimination and such but obvs if u have like 50 60 dB loss you aren't a candidate...
 
Thanks for your input. I am at 100 db loss without hearing aids so I believe I qualify as far as how deaf I am, and the speech discrimination is a big thing for me. I'm practically at zero with that right now so .. thanks ! :)
 
AlleyCat said:
Is that just your opinion, or do you know that for a fact? I ask only because I've been seriously considering getting a CI. I DO hear plenty of sounds with a hearing aid (I am at 100 db loss, and at about 30-40 with the HAs.) But my speech discrimination is about zero. I am not looking at getting a CI for improved volume since I can get that with a hearing aid; I am looking for the clarity (like LadySekhmet said) and improved speech discrimination.
Click to expand...

Alicia is correct. It's normally tested with speech discrimination, and how well you pick up the tonal sounds makes you qualify for CI. Someone with Mild to moderate loss most likely wouldn't even consider it.

For example, I *thought* I could hear very well with my hearing aid. I couldn't be more wrong. I was sorely lacking all the higher frequencies. I had "mild" loss in the lower frequencies (with HAs). My brain was kind of filling in the gaps when I talk to people because I know what speech is supposed to sound like. So, with CI, the high frequencies are now at the same level as the lows, so it's all the extra clarity that I'm hearing now.

I had 6% in my left, 22% in my right (speech discrimination). Now - It's over 50% in both ears. I have been slacking a little on my training. Now that I have my dang Y Adapter to put both of my PACs in, so I'm working on going back into training again...that what makes and breaks on how well you use the CI. Some people do better than me, some don't do as well. That's why I think it all has to do with training and how your auditory memory is. I find that people who never heard music or heard certain sounds before have a little bit more difficult time adjusting.
 
Questions about CI qualification is best ask at your doctor.
 
Last edited:
If you could hear just good enough with a hearing aid then you will never quaifty or even be a candidate for CI.

Anyone who is a candidate for a CI is not going to hear MORE with a hearing aid no matter how powerful the aid is.

So therefore if a person is a candidate for CI then that mean thier hearing loss is so servered that obviously a hearing aid is not going to help them any more than a CI will help them.
Click to expand...
Really? Then how come someone I know who can hear 80% with HA is thinking about opting for CI?
I do agree with you for the right off the bat canidates. But the fact of the matter is that qualifying for CI has gotten a lot easier in recent years.
I think for the ambigious canidates that the difference between hearing with CI and HA for severe and profound is prolly akin to the diffy between hearing with digital vs analog aids.
You guys have to admit that hearing technology is very hit or miss.
And I think that you guys don't quite realize that I'm agreeing with you regarding sound quality.
 
I would consider myself in the "I can hear just good enough with a HA" section. I reckon I am spot on the hear 80% with HA's.

My hearing loss is about 60/75db in both ears. With my HA's in I can get by in most situations, and in really noisy situations I do better than hearies as i can lipread....its only when they try and help me and shout in my ear over the noise that I then have a problem!!!

....but I don't want to just "get by". I want to hear as well as I possibly can. So if CI can give me better sound, better clarity and a better comprehension of the what is going on in the world around me, then I think I should consider it.

It is not just about me either....my wife and kids have to deal with the fact that I mishear stuff on a daily basis which makes having conversations irritating....I have two teenagers....its hard enough getting conversation out them sometimes anyway without mishearing what they said when they did say something!!
 
AlleyCat said:
Is that just your opinion, or do you know that for a fact? I ask only because I've been seriously considering getting a CI. I DO hear plenty of sounds with a hearing aid (I am at 100 db loss, and at about 30-40 with the HAs.) But my speech discrimination is about zero. I am not looking at getting a CI for improved volume since I can get that with a hearing aid; I am looking for the clarity (like LadySekhmet said) and improved speech discrimination.
Click to expand...

It is a fact. My speech discrimation with ha were 1% and 17%. Now one year later my speech discrimation HNT sentences(they say a sentence and you repeat) is 84% and 96%. The clarity really can't be explained, just realized that in the 38 years of being HOH/deaf this is the best I have ever heard anything. It is nothing like wearing a hearing aid.
 
Chalgravesteve said:
I would consider myself in the "I can hear just good enough with a HA" section. I reckon I am spot on the hear 80% with HA's.

My hearing loss is about 60/75db in both ears. With my HA's in I can get by in most situations, and in really noisy situations I do better than hearies as i can lipread....its only when they try and help me and shout in my ear over the noise that I then have a problem!!!

....but I don't want to just "get by". I want to hear as well as I possibly can. So if CI can give me better sound, better clarity and a better comprehension of the what is going on in the world around me, then I think I should consider it.

It is not just about me either....my wife and kids have to deal with the fact that I mishear stuff on a daily basis which makes having conversations irritating....I have two teenagers....its hard enough getting conversation out them sometimes anyway without mishearing what they said when they did say something!!
Click to expand...

I know that frustration. I went 7 years ago to the audie and was tested for CIs. I did not qualify because I did have too much speech discrimation and my hearing loss was not as severe as it needed to be. A lot has changed in 7 years. Also not all insurances companies will cover the cost unless you have low speech discrimation and type of hearing loss. I would check with your doctors and insurance.
 
OK....

so the consensus is that CI will deliver a much better clarity and quality of hearing.....

I am trying to get a referral from my doctors to a CI programme....to see if other think I am suitable for CI....and that might take some time...

I like to have some idea before I go for consulations and some eductaed questions to as with some idea of the answers I ought to get from a medical expert...

...so we approach the $64,000 question....

what if?? what it I was selected for a programme, and had an unsuccessful implant....does the operation cause irreversible "damage" to the cochlear which would mean that my HA's would be useless thereafter? ie...is this a no backward step option??

does anyone have any knowledge of the stats on how many % of implants have little, no or worse impact on the hearing of the person implanted?

this is purely the technical aspect of the CI itself...I know that surgical operations will always carry an element of risk to ongoing health, but that is a different area to the actual operation of the implant(s).
 
Chalgravesteve said:
...so we approach the $64,000 question....

what if?? what it I was selected for a programme, and had an unsuccessful implant....does the operation cause irreversible "damage" to the cochlear which would mean that my HA's would be useless thereafter? ie...is this a no backward step option??

does anyone have any knowledge of the stats on how many % of implants have little, no or worse impact on the hearing of the person implanted?

this is purely the technical aspect of the CI itself...I know that surgical operations will always carry an element of risk to ongoing health, but that is a different area to the actual operation of the implant(s).
Click to expand...

Very good questions. Same questions I've been asking too. I know that it's always a good idea to get medical facts from your doctor, but on the other hand, getting so much personal feedback/point-of-view from the hundreds of people on this board and other forums has been very helpful too.

As far as your first question goes, as it stands now, most cochlear implant surgeries will indeed eradicate most of your residual hearing. (However, from what I have read on the FDA site and other places, that whole issue is starting to change. At some point it is believed that the eradication of your residual hearing won't be necessary anymore.) For now, it is unlikely you would be able to go back to a hearing aid afterward in the event you didn't like your CI. That was an issue I was wrestling with too. I would still have my other ear as a back-up so I have come to terms with the whole idea of losing my residual hearing as long as it's only in one ear.
 
I don't have the stats, but your audiologist should be able to tell you what the stats are for that particular center. If the implant or surgery does not go well, the CI company will pay for the second surgery. You should be able to get your answer prior to the appointment if you want all the information upfront before paying for the evaluation.
 
Chalgravesteve said:
OK....

so the consensus is that CI will deliver a much better clarity and quality of hearing.....

I am trying to get a referral from my doctors to a CI programme....to see if other think I am suitable for CI....and that might take some time...

I like to have some idea before I go for consulations and some eductaed questions to as with some idea of the answers I ought to get from a medical expert...

...so we approach the $64,000 question....

what if?? what it I was selected for a programme, and had an unsuccessful implant....does the operation cause irreversible "damage" to the cochlear which would mean that my HA's would be useless thereafter? ie...is this a no backward step option??

does anyone have any knowledge of the stats on how many % of implants have little, no or worse impact on the hearing of the person implanted?

this is purely the technical aspect of the CI itself...I know that surgical operations will always carry an element of risk to ongoing health, but that is a different area to the actual operation of the implant(s).
Click to expand...

Thats why I took the risk as i have nothing to loose with my hearing. I am glad I took the step.

I think have a stats (South of England CI Centre) somewhere in the house about how many people had sucessful Implant, how many weren't and How many decided that they weren't for them, How many didn't bother to make the benefit of using CI.
 
Back
Top