Will cochlear implants be obsolete when stem cells comes?

[deafdude1]

You know.....in past decades there have been "cures" like airplane rides (1920's and 30's) and in the 70's it was chiropratic. What makes you think that stem cells are any different? You know..........hearing and sight and mobilty disabilites can be ADAPTED to and lived with! We need to concentrate cures on stuff that REALLY affects people like Alizhiemers, mental illness, profound mental retardation etc.

Well itll still greatly improve the quality of life to see/hear better. Stem cells can cure life threatening and major disabilities, it can also cure other smaller disabilities then. If you don't believe in stem cell technology then you can't choose which "cure" stem cells will achieve. Stem cells will either cure all or none.

 

[sr171soars]

You may not "forget" and the memory may certainly be there, but you'll lose a certain approximation of what normal excellent hearing actually IS. Any audiologist will tell you that the longer you go without hearing the more the nerve starts to atrophy. The CI is a totally robotic, electronic sound. Go to YouTube and check out the CI activation videos. In nearly every single one, you'll hear the comment that "hmmm...this sounds really robotic" or "this sounds like it's "pulsating"" or something along those lines. Once you get used to hearing through something like that, of course it will seem like normal hearing. But NEVER at the START.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a study performed on this - how long between when someone who is hearing and when they get the CI how much of a sound they truly hear vs. real, true NORMAL sound.

I bet the results of such a study would surprise everyone.

This begs the question "what is normal sound?" All sounds are ultimately signals that travel the cochlear nerve to the brain. It doesn't matter how the signals are transmitted. Thus, it is the brain that is the final arbitrator what those signals mean. The only difference for the brain between "normal" hearing via cochlear hairs and a CI is the number of signals being sent.

The brain is a superb fourier machine that can take any series of signals and decipher them. It can do things with less such as a CI and "smooth" it out and make it sound "normal". One reason it can do that is because for people who have had heard in the past it can extrapolate what it ought to be.

Obviously, for those who have never heard before this is more challenging as they have nothing to go by. However, young kids with CIs from the start are probably the best users of CI as their brain adapts so much better than older users. In other words, the brain adapts so well that studies have shown their "wiring" is really geared to a CI or CIs. Of course, it is when one is young that is the age of the brain's best learns to handle noises in general and specifically speech.

On a personal level, yes things sounded "robotic" to me at first. Funny thing was the fact it really on lasted one day to me. Day two, the world sounded very much like I had heard with my HA. My only problem was reclassifying all the sounds I was used to because I never really heard the higher pitches before. An example was the water faucet. When I first heard that at home with my CI, I couldn't believe how it sounded. Many other sounds were similar as I was finally getting a better all around sound input.

 

[faire_jour]

You may not "forget" and the memory may certainly be there, but you'll lose a certain approximation of what normal excellent hearing actually IS. Any audiologist will tell you that the longer you go without hearing the more the nerve starts to atrophy. The CI is a totally robotic, electronic sound. Go to YouTube and check out the CI activation videos. In nearly every single one, you'll hear the comment that "hmmm...this sounds really robotic" or "this sounds like it's "pulsating"" or something along those lines. Once you get used to hearing through something like that, of course it will seem like normal hearing. But NEVER at the START.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a study performed on this - how long between when someone who is hearing and when they get the CI how much of a sound they truly hear vs. real, true NORMAL sound.

I bet the results of such a study would surprise everyone.

Every person I have ever spoken to, who began with normal hearing, or late deafened, or progressive loss, has said within 6 months it was normal. No more "weird" or "metallic", or robotic sounds. 6 months.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Every person I have ever spoken to, who began with normal hearing, or late deafened, or progressive loss, has said within 6 months it was normal. No more "weird" or "metallic", or robotic sounds. 6 months.

That would the brain filling in the gaps. Not "normal hearing."

I know this because I went from analog to digital in 2006.

 

[kokonut]

Actually, it's adapting to a new environmental input. Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example. Getting his CI he said everything sounded like chipmunks. It took a few months to adjust to those sound and now it sounds "normal" in the sense it doesn't sound like people talking like squeaky chipmunks.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Actually, it's adapting to a new environmental input. Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example. Getting his CI he said everything sounded like chipmunks. It took a few months to adjust to those sound and now it sounds "normal" in the sense it doesn't sound like people talking like squeaky chipmunks.

RIght, however the sound inputs by the CI is still artificial. Just that the brain doesn't perceive it that way after adjusting to those inputs to save its own sanity. I know of late CI patients say that when they first got CI, everyone sounds like Donald Duck or Alvin and the Chipmunks at first before they got used to it. Some of the CI users them do talk like that oddly, others don't.

 

[sr171soars]

<Sigh!>

Does anybody read what others say here?!? Or is this an exercise in futility?

What is artificial about a CI's input? All comes down to signals to the brain pure and simple. It doesn't matter how it gets passed on to the cochlear nerve. A cochlear hair triggers a nerve impulse just like a CI triggers an impulse and nothing tells the brain is it artificial. As far as the brain concerned, it is getting signals no matter how the signals are sent.

The main difference over normal hearing vs a CI is the amount of signals. Artificial doesn't come into play period.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

<Sigh!>

Does anybody read what others say here?!? Or is this an exercise in futility?

What is artificial about a CI's input? All comes down to signals to the brain pure and simple. It doesn't matter how it gets passed on to the cochlear nerve. A cochlear hair triggers a nerve impulse just like a CI triggers an impulse and nothing tells the brain is it artificial. As far as the brain concerned, it is getting signals no matter how the signals are sent.

The main difference over normal hearing vs a CI is the amount of signals. Artificial doesn't come into play period.

Nah, it was explained to me how hearing aids and CI works. It works by channels, and sounds get grouped in with these channels. At least that how it was explained to me when I asked why I couldn't tell the difference between "guh" and "buh" when I got my digitals when I used to be able to with my analogs. The same applies to CI technology.

Like say, you have 24 channels... and there xx many sounds. Those sounds get blended into the each channels because there isn't enough for each individual sound. That is what we means by "artificial." So it is really technological limitation that is making the sounds artificial.

We, as hearing aid wearers and CI implantees, don't get the same full range of inputs as hearing people do.

 

[sr171soars]

Nah, it was explained to me how hearing aids and CI works. It works by channels, and sounds get grouped in with these channels.

Like say, you have 24 channels... and there xx many sounds. Those sounds get blended into the each channels because there isn't enough for each individual sound. That is what we means by "artificial." So it is really technological limitation that is making the sounds artificial.

We, as hearing aid wearers and CI implantees, don't get the same full range of inputs as hearing people do.

You are still missing the point. It still comes down to triggering the cochlear nerve endings in the cochlear wall. Doesn't matter how it is done as it all comes down nerve impulses traveling to the brain. Nothing artificial in that.

However, you are correct that we don't get the full range and that is the difference in what we hear. As for sounds, you can hear individual sounds and that is proved easily enough. Just hit a key (any key will do) on a piano. Now, the problem for a CI with a piano or music in general is that a CI with its electrode has trouble triggering all 88 keys as individual sounds. Usually, it isn't such a problem in the middle ranges but much harder on either end.

 

[ecp]

Clinical trials aren't an easy task. Often they take several years.
Anyway, the thing will be much much more complicated than it seems to some of you. Genetic theraphy, in vivo tissue growth, cellular proliferation and self-organization are largely unknown phenomena, there are so many things still to be discovered and studied before stating we have THE cure.
Nobody has an idea of the complications, side effects, expected success rate for the various kind of hearing losses.
It won't at all be like having an injection and boom, my cochlea is healed. Unfortunately it won't be that easy. Nevertheless it will be possible and we are facing this new age. Nobody can forecast when the first solid effects of this new age will really appear. It is much more probable we need decades than it will happen tomorrow. (Of course I would be happy it will really be tomorrow!)

You are awesome! You prove that I'm not the pessimistic scientist! I <3 you.

Making cells in a tissue culture dish is easy. Really easy. But these cells must be fed every day and die just to piss the scientists off.

Regarding Cord Blood regenerating hair cells, I thought of a major problem with that today. The cochlea is poorly vascularized, it barely gets any blood. Cord blood must get to the intended place in order to have any effect. Cord blood could possibly work for neonatal brain damage and even vision impairment because the brain and retina have good blood supplies. Not to be gross, but when removing a mouse's cochlea (after the mouse is euthanized in a humane way- trust me, I love animals and hated euthanizing mice (people thought I was insane for talking to the mice and making their death less stressful)) there is no blood. Not a drop.

And clinical trials take years. You must first prove that the treatment works in animals without causing harm (2 to 3 years), then you must get IRB approval for a limited human trial (another 3 to 5 years), they you have to analyze the results from the trial and decide whether to go forward (all this assumes that you keep your funding). If you go forward you begin a stage two trial. (another 5ish years) then there is stage 3 (another 5ish years). Then it can possibly be approved by the FDA or CE (in Europe). Then individual institutions decide whether they wish to use the still experimental treatment.

Maybe cord blood can somehow reach the cochlea and magically become the right type of cell that innervates the spiral ganglion in the right place.

 

[kokonut]

You are awesome! You prove that I'm not the pessimistic scientist! I <3 you.

Making cells in a tissue culture dish is easy. Really easy. But these cells must be fed every day and die just to piss the scientists off.

Regarding Cord Blood regenerating hair cells, I thought of a major problem with that today. The cochlea is poorly vascularized, it barely gets any blood. Cord blood must get to the intended place in order to have any effect. Cord blood could possibly work for neonatal brain damage and even vision impairment because the brain and retina have good blood supplies. Not to be gross, but when removing a mouse's cochlea (after the mouse is euthanized in a humane way- trust me, I love animals and hated euthanizing mice (people thought I was insane for talking to the mice and making their death less stressful)) there is no blood. Not a drop.

And clinical trials take years. You must first prove that the treatment works in animals without causing harm (2 to 3 years), then you must get IRB approval for a limited human trial (another 3 to 5 years), they you have to analyze the results from the trial and decide whether to go forward (all this assumes that you keep your funding). If you go forward you begin a stage two trial. (another 5ish years) then there is stage 3 (another 5ish years). Then it can possibly be approved by the FDA or CE (in Europe). Then individual institutions decide whether they wish to use the still experimental treatment.

Maybe cord blood can somehow reach the cochlea and magically become the right type of cell that innervates the spiral ganglion in the right place.

It has nothing to do with the blood itself into the cochlea but the stem cells found in the cord blood. That's why they call it a "cord blood stem cell transplant."

Cord Blood May Repair Hearing Loss June 2009
Hearing loss due to cochlear damage may be repaired by transplanting cord blood stem cells according to new research from Italy published in the journal Cell Transplantation. The work shows that a small number of cells can migrate to the damaged cochlea and repair sensory hair cells and neurons.

For their study, the research team used animal models in which permanent hearing loss had been induced by intense noise, chemical toxicity or both. Cochlear regeneration was only observed in animal groups that received cord blood stem cell transplants. Researchers used sensitive tracing methods to determine if the transplanted cells were capable of migrating to the cochlea and evaluated whether the cells could contribute to regenerating neurons and sensory tissue in the cochlea.

Results also showed that cochlear regeneration was less in the transplanted group deafened by noise rather than chemicals, implying that damage was more severe when induced by noise. Regenerative effects were greater in mice injected with a higher number of cord blood stem cells. They also found that regeneration of cochlear tissues improved as time passed.

“This study provides hope for a potential treatment for the repair of hearing impairments, particularly those arising as a consequence of cochlear damage,” said David Eve, PhD, at the University of South Florida Health, and associate editor of Cell Transplantation.

Cord Blood May Repair Hearing Loss | CordBank New Zealand

Time is getting closer and closer until a cure for hearing loss becomes all too real.

 

[ecp]

It has nothing to do with the blood itself into the cochlea but the stem cells found in the cord blood. That's why they call it a "cord blood stem cell transplant."


Cord Blood May Repair Hearing Loss | CordBank New Zealand

Time is getting closer and closer until a cure for hearing loss becomes all too real.

A small number of cells migrate? Awesome.
I did an experiment in which I was able to improve a mouse's ABR by 20dB because of a "small number of cells" taking the gene I was studying. This improved their hearing from really damn deaf to slightly less really damn deaf. The ABR was still abnormal. They most likely wouldn't understand mouse speech. The ABR has a specific meaning with each wave representing a different part of the journey from hair cell to brain. These mice had a great first and second wave but nothing after that. The brain didn't get the message.

I'll have to look up the article you cite, I happen to have a free subscription to the journal you mention. But just because a cell goes to a place and even looks like it should doesn't mean it will work the way it is supposed.

You have to put the cells in the correct place in order for them to develop. How do you do that? Drill a hole in the cochlea, inject the cord blood (which by definition contains stem cells (come on, I'm not an idiot- you don't have to be all sarcastic about things).) IF you inject the cord blood into the cochlea, what will happen to the components that don't attach and begin to release cytokines which will kill other cells? The cochlea already has fluid, which is necessary for cochlear function. If you displace this fluid with the cord blood transplant, you disrupt the very precise ionic balance of the cochlea.

I am beginning to think that nobody actually reads other people's posts. Four years ago I left this forum because nobody engaged in dialogue. Everybody just accuses all the other people of being biased or misinformed.

I've been trying to say that the debate about CI vs. stem cells is irrelevant because CIs are here and people can choose to get them if they want to. But the hope that stem cells will "cure" us all in the next few years is, in my opinion, a bit exaggerated. And frankly, I don't want to be cured.

Maybe I need another hiatus.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I am beginning to think that nobody actually reads other people's posts. Four years ago I left this forum because nobody engaged in dialogue. Everybody just accuses all the other people of being biased or misinformed.

Maybe I need another hiatus.

You will find that on any website you go to. Not an AllDeaf thing or a deaf thing even. I like reading your discourses.

 

[deafdyke]

We, as hearing aid wearers and CI implantees, don't get the same full range of inputs as hearing people do.

YES. Hearing aids and CIs make dhh people hoh..............we also do not hear like hearing people.
deafdude.................Sigh.....you just don't get it. A cure in one area of medience won't nessarily translate to another area. Also, it's obvious you have never encountered conditions that REALLY honestly effect day to day life, such as mental retardation, autism Aliezheimers, mental illness etc.
You know..........I love being able to "hear" but I would trade it in a SECOND if I could get rid of being bipolar!

 

[deafdude1]

Regarding Cord Blood regenerating hair cells, I thought of a major problem with that today. The cochlea is poorly vascularized, it barely gets any blood. Cord blood must get to the intended place in order to have any effect.

Perhaps the cells can pass thru tissue/bone? It worked on mice model.

And clinical trials take years. You must first prove that the treatment works in animals without causing harm (2 to 3 years)

During the 2009 HLAA a few months ago, they said it would take 10 years before we begin clinical trials with monkeys and no less than 20-30 years to begin clinical trials on the first humans. We are way ahead of this!

Then you must get IRB approval for a limited human trial (another 3 to 5 years), they you have to analyze the results from the trial and decide whether to go forward (all this assumes that you keep your funding). If you go forward you begin a stage two trial. (another 5ish years) then there is stage 3 (another 5ish years). Then it can possibly be approved by the FDA or CE (in Europe). Then individual institutions decide whether they wish to use the still experimental treatment.

I plan to join stage II trial and if all the slots are full, ill just travel to another country to get it experimentally after seeing positive results from stage I trials. I am not gonna wait around 15 years for FDA approval, ill just wait 3-5 years before joining stage II trial or getting it done in another country.

Maybe cord blood can somehow reach the cochlea and magically become the right type of cell that innervates the spiral ganglion in the right place.

There's no "magic" in science and medicine, there's a perfect logical explaination that is probably already known.

A small number of cells migrate? Awesome.
I did an experiment in which I was able to improve a mouse's ABR by 20dB because of a "small number of cells" taking the gene I was studying. This improved their hearing from really damn deaf to slightly less really damn deaf. The ABR was still abnormal. They most likely wouldn't understand mouse speech. The ABR has a specific meaning with each wave representing a different part of the journey from hair cell to brain. These mice had a great first and second wave but nothing after that. The brain didn't get the message.

At what frequencies was the 20db improvement? Im guessing in the lows and mids, of which are most important anyway. I wouldn't use the word "damn deaf" it's not politically correct. Try "This improved their hearing from really profoundly deaf to marely severely deaf." As for abnormal ABR, itll be less abnormal and unaided and aided hearing will improve(in humans of course) How many of you would love a 20db improvement? I surely would!

But just because a cell goes to a place and even looks like it should doesn't mean it will work the way it is supposed.

Should and shouldn't don't matter. It does work!

You have to put the cells in the correct place in order for them to develop. How do you do that? Drill a hole in the cochlea and inject the cord blood. If you inject the cord blood into the cochlea, what will happen to the components that don't attach and begin to release cytokines which will kill other cells? The cochlea already has fluid, which is necessary for cochlear function. If you displace this fluid with the cord blood transplant, you disrupt the very precise ionic balance of the cochlea.

I would like to avoid surgery and preserve my residual hearing. Ill take my 20db improvement by injecting cord blood in my arm and letting some cells make their way to my cochlea. I am not gonna gamble with surgery/drilling any holes and risk losing more hearing than gaining, It's for that reason I have little interest in CI unless I lost all my residual hearing because CI will destroy it anyway. I would also like to avoid other associated risks, if this means taking a safe, easy 20db instead of risking most/all my residual hearing for a 40db improvement, then be it. Most of us will take the injection to arm for +20db instead of surgery/drilling to inject the cord blood for +40db if lucky or probably -20db or lose all if unlucky.

I've been trying to say that the debate about CI vs. stem cells is irrelevant because CIs are here and people can choose to get them if they want to. But the hope that stem cells will "cure" us all in the next few years is, in my opinion, a bit exaggerated. And frankly, I don't want to be cured.

A 20db improvement isn't a cure, just "upgrading" a profound loss to severe. Very, very, very big difference in how much better youd hear! I know CI has been here since before I was born but I still choose stem cells and this is my choice. I understand the advantages of stem cells, of which are numerous. I hope for a 20db improvement, this is way more realistic than a complete cure and something I may be able to attain in 3-5 years. I will worry about a complete cure in the far future when that time comes. Right now I am taking it one step at a time and a 20db improvement is my first step.

YES. Hearing aids and CIs make dhh people hoh..............we also do not hear like hearing people.
deafdude.................Sigh.....you just don't get it. A cure in one area of medience won't nessarily translate to another area. Also, it's obvious you have never encountered conditions that REALLY honestly effect day to day life, such as mental retardation, autism Aliezheimers, mental illness etc.
You know..........I love being able to "hear" but I would trade it in a SECOND if I could get rid of being bipolar!

We both agree that HA and CI doesn't give normal hearing. But we have our disagreements on stem cells. I already know stem cells can treat diseases far more serious than deafness and am greatful for this. But stem cells is still going to improve hearing and everything else. Perhaps this will require different types of stem cells? And speaking of cures, I won't consider myself cured of my deafness with a 20db improvement in my hearing, ill just be less deaf or very HOH.

 

[Phi4Sius]

I wouldn't start placing bets on only a 20 dB improvement when they've mentioned SEVERE hearing loss in their press release. This means they have ways of restoring at least 40 dB hearing already if not more. They wouldn't be experimenting on humans unless they have plans for significant gains in SEVERE losses already.

They're not looking for just a mild or moderate loss. But SEVERE and specifically mention that at least 600 of the children with their cord blood stored there have at least a severe loss.

Trust me. They have it worked out already or they wouldn't be talking about restoring severe sensorineural hearing losses in children!

This is different than jumping out of a plane or so-called chiropractic cures. This is a clinical trial being performed on human children, which means it's already seen major success on animals and human adults in other countries with NO complications.

That fact alone is HUGE.

 

[kokonut]

I wouldn't start placing bets on only a 20 dB improvement when they've mentioned SEVERE hearing loss in their press release. This means they have ways of restoring at least 40 dB hearing already if not more. They wouldn't be experimenting on humans unless they have plans for significant gains in SEVERE losses already.

They're not looking for just a mild or moderate loss. But SEVERE and specifically mention that at least 600 of the children with their cord blood stored there have at least a severe loss.

Trust me. They have it worked out already or they wouldn't be talking about restoring severe sensorineural hearing losses in children!

This is different than jumping out of a plane or so-called chiropractic cures. This is a clinical trial being performed on human children, which means it's already seen major success on animals and human adults in other countries with NO complications.

That fact alone is HUGE.

Yes, it's huge. Indicating a big leap in time on when stem cell can be used to cure/treat with successful results on hearing loss, and not some 20 to 30 years down the road. I've said it before about adult and cord blood stem cells research is that research and development are occuring at a faster and faster rate leading quickly to more human trials and acceptance (e.g. EU, FDA) for eventual marketing for a variety of conditions and maladies. My link easily shows that.

It's coming.....!

 

[SkullChick]

no no, kokonut and miss kat's mom ABI (brainstem implant) is NOT for progressive hearing loss, ABI is for people that cochlea is completely 100% dead/ completely blocked from ossification, destroyed, malformed, or absent of cochlea (the small snail shell shaped organ) but if your auditory nerves is still working/present (its nerves between cochlea and brain) they will put small plate with 16 electrodes and put it on the nerves to get very basic idea of sounds, when CI is for cochlea itself it will be placed directly on the cochlea nerves inside the snail shell the cell can be completely dead but it still can be stimulated with electrodes to produce sound (alive) then you are CI candidates.

 

[Lissa]

Even if stem cells were made available I would not to choose stem cells. I am happy being deaf and hearing with a CI

 

[AlleyCat]

I considered a CI last year. Met with a CI audi and all. Results weren't positive in the direction of getting a CI (I've posted about this elsewhere) so I opted not to. And I'm reading more and more about other options, such as stem cell therapy (it's all over the news, really) that I'm now more interested in waiting to see what else comes along before I ever reconsider a CI. I told myself I'd definitely reconsider a CI if I suffered a further drop in hearing, but maybe by the time that happens (if it does -- I haven't had a change in hearing loss since age 21 and I'm now in my late 30's) perhaps other options will be available.