The Surprising Performance of Present-Day Cochlear Implants

Cloggy

Cloggy

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,703
Reaction score
0
The Surprising Performance of Present-Day Cochlear Implants
Wilson, B. S. Dorman, M. F.

This paper appears in: Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: June 2007
Volume: 54, Issue: 6, Part 1
On page(s): 969-972
ISSN: 0018-9294
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TBME.2007.893505
Posted online: 2007-05-21 10:03:29.0


Abstract
The speech reception performance of a recipient of the Clarion CII implant was evaluated with a comprehensive set of tests. The same tests were administered for a group of six subjects with normal hearing. Scores for the implant subject were not different from the scores for the normal-hearing subjects, for seven of the nine tests, including the most difficult test used in standard clinical practice. These results are both surprising and encouraging, in that the implant provides only a very crude mimicking of only some aspects of the normal physiology.
 
Cloggy said:
The Surprising Performance of Present-Day Cochlear Implants
Wilson, B. S. Dorman, M. F.

This paper appears in: Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: June 2007
Volume: 54, Issue: 6, Part 1
On page(s): 969-972
ISSN: 0018-9294
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TBME.2007.893505
Posted online: 2007-05-21 10:03:29.0


Abstract
The speech reception performance of a recipient of the Clarion CII implant was evaluated with a comprehensive set of tests. The same tests were administered for a group of six subjects with normal hearing. Scores for the implant subject were not different from the scores for the normal-hearing subjects, for seven of the nine tests, including the most difficult test used in standard clinical practice. These results are both surprising and encouraging, in that the implant provides only a very crude mimicking of only some aspects of the normal physiology.
Click to expand...


1) Case study. Cannot be generalized.
2) Subject involved in case study post lingually or prelingually deafened?
3) Mild, moderate, severe, or profound loss?
4) Unilateral or bilateral loss?
5) Age of subject?
6) Length of time using implant?
 
jillio said:
1) Case study. Cannot be generalized.
2) Subject involved in case study post lingually or prelingually deafened?
3) Mild, moderate, severe, or profound loss?
4) Unilateral or bilateral loss?
5) Age of subject?
6) Length of time using implant?
Click to expand...
True.. plenty of questions still to be answered.......

Who was generalising?

I haven't seen you describing the CI-users you meet and base your conclusions on...

So in your case...., your subjects, the questions/remarks are....
1) Case study. Cannot be generalized.
2) Subject involved in case study post lingually or prelingually deafened?
3) Mild, moderate, severe, or profound loss?
4) Unilateral or bilateral loss?
5) Age of subject?
6) Length of time using implant?[/QUOTE]
 
I have access to several IEEE journals through my university (yay for web publishing), so I thought I'd post some more details.

The subject was a postie - started losing his hearing at age 23, completely (bilaterally) deaf (and implanted with a CII - unilat, not bilat) at age 34, and the testing occurred one year later. It's interesting that they describe him as completely deaf - he did perceive SPLs above 90 dB, but apparently only as a tactile sensation and not as an auditory one.

The tests on which the subject didn't do so well are what you'd expect - tests with high noise levels (in particular, babble-noise - so not just noise, but other speakers). What did surprise me, though, is that the subject did very well on those tests; just not as well as the control population.

(Yeah, yeah, case study. Hopefully larger-scale studies are coming down the pipe.)
 
ismi said:
I have access to several IEEE journals through my university (yay for web publishing), so I thought I'd post some more details.

The subject was a postie - started losing his hearing at age 23, completely (bilaterally) deaf (and implanted with a CII - unilat, not bilat) at age 34, and the testing occurred one year later. It's interesting that they describe him as completely deaf - he did perceive SPLs above 90 dB, but apparently only as a tactile sensation and not as an auditory one.

The tests on which the subject didn't do so well are what you'd expect - tests with high noise levels (in particular, babble-noise - so not just noise, but other speakers). What did surprise me, though, is that the subject did very well on those tests; just not as well as the control population.

(Yeah, yeah, case study. Hopefully larger-scale studies are coming down the pipe.)
Click to expand...

Oh..u are saying that this study was done on a postie?
 
Yeah, I would not use a study on a post lingually deaf person to argue anything for prelingually deaf children. They are quite different situations.
 
ismi said:
I have access to several IEEE journals through my university (yay for web publishing), so I thought I'd post some more details.

The subject was a postie - started losing his hearing at age 23, completely (bilaterally) deaf (and implanted with a CII - unilat, not bilat) at age 34, and the testing occurred one year later. It's interesting that they describe him as completely deaf - he did perceive SPLs above 90 dB, but apparently only as a tactile sensation and not as an auditory one.

The tests on which the subject didn't do so well are what you'd expect - tests with high noise levels (in particular, babble-noise - so not just noise, but other speakers). What did surprise me, though, is that the subject did very well on those tests; just not as well as the control population.

(Yeah, yeah, case study. Hopefully larger-scale studies are coming down the pipe.)
Click to expand...
That explains a lot.
Since I didn't have access to the paper, I just posted the part I could access, the abstract. I didn't make any assumptions..., just past on the message.
Your info was great.... Thanks.
 
ismi said:
I have access to several IEEE journals through my university (yay for web publishing), so I thought I'd post some more details.

The subject was a postie - started losing his hearing at age 23, completely (bilaterally) deaf (and implanted with a CII - unilat, not bilat) at age 34, and the testing occurred one year later. It's interesting that they describe him as completely deaf - he did perceive SPLs above 90 dB, but apparently only as a tactile sensation and not as an auditory one.

The tests on which the subject didn't do so well are what you'd expect - tests with high noise levels (in particular, babble-noise - so not just noise, but other speakers). What did surprise me, though, is that the subject did very well on those tests; just not as well as the control population.

(Yeah, yeah, case study. Hopefully larger-scale studies are coming down the pipe.)
Click to expand...

Thanks. That explains a lot!
 
Cloggy said:
True.. plenty of questions still to be answered.......

Who was generalising?

I haven't seen you describing the CI-users you meet and base your conclusions on...

So in your case...., your subjects, the questions/remarks are....
1) Case study. Cannot be generalized.
2) Subject involved in case study post lingually or prelingually deafened?
3) Mild, moderate, severe, or profound loss?
4) Unilateral or bilateral loss?
5) Age of subject?
6) Length of time using implant?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


If you haven't seen me describing the CI useres I work with on a daily basis, and have had the pleasure of having contact with for the past 20 years, then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Therefore, as I base my judgements on more than one CI user, my opinion is not based on one subject, and therefore is not a case study.

You, my friend, are the one that generalizes the experience of one to the probability of all.
 
jillio said:
If you haven't seen me describing the CI useres I work with on a daily basis, and have had the pleasure of having contact with for the past 20 years, then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Therefore, as I base my judgements on more than one CI user, my opinion is not based on one subject, and therefore is not a case study.

You, my friend, are the one that generalizes the experience of one to the probability of all.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you have been working with them for 20 years....right,...

Me generalizing the experience of one.... hardly....

Friend???
 
Cloggy said:
Ok, so you have been working with them for 20 years....right,...

Me generalizing the experience of one.... hardly....

Friend???
Click to expand...

Once again, twisting words. I said I now work with CI users on a daily basis. I said I have had contact with CI users for the last 20 years.
 
Back
Top