Wow! AB's Harmony vs. Cochlear's Nucleus 5!

Nice find. But sometimes you have to be careful about specs found on the company's website...I mean of course they're only going to list the details where Advanced Bionics's product is better than Cochlear's.

But at least AB uses real numbers here, which kind of eases the bias.
 
These details are only useful if you know what they mean.

1. The temporal resolution numbers really aren't important, as it has already been shown that most CI users are unable to discriminate pitch differences for rates above 300 pulses per second per channel. The total stimulation rates as listed there for both devices are more than capable of delivering this.

2. The spectral resolution numbers are also overexaggerated. Even for systems with as many as 22 electrode pairs/channels most users are incapable of utilising more than 4 - 8 channels for speech recognition. Yes more channels in theory allows for better pitch perception, but in practice this is relevant only to puretones and does not translate to complex sounds because of current interactions between electrodes.

3. An expanded input dynamic range is useful for quiet situations, but in noise it just means you hear more noise, so this could be a positive or a negative depending upon the situation you're in. Current studies suggest an input dynamic range of 40 is better than one of 30, but there is no evidence ot suggest an IDR of > 45 offers any further benefit.

4. Potential pitch percepts - the emphasis being very much on potential. Pitch perception research suggests that CI users are unable to reliably rank the direction of a pitch change for a pair of notes 1/4 of an octave apart. Current speech processing strategies are very poor at providing pitch information, as they must work within the limitations of electrical stimulation in fluid-filled environment, the emphasis naturally being on speech as that is their main purpose.

5. Sound coding strategies are generally proprietary and largely device-specific. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the advanced bionics strategies are superior to anything else on the market.
 
Resolution said:
These details are only useful if you know what they mean.

1. The temporal resolution numbers really aren't important, as it has already been shown that most CI users are unable to discriminate pitch differences for rates above 300 pulses per second per channel. The total stimulation rates as listed there for both devices are more than capable of delivering this.

2. The spectral resolution numbers are also overexaggerated. Even for systems with as many as 22 electrode pairs/channels most users are incapable of utilising more than 4 - 8 channels for speech recognition. Yes more channels in theory allows for better pitch perception, but in practice this is relevant only to puretones and does not translate to complex sounds because of current interactions between electrodes.

3. An expanded input dynamic range is useful for quiet situations, but in noise it just means you hear more noise, so this could be a positive or a negative depending upon the situation you're in. Current studies suggest an input dynamic range of 40 is better than one of 30, but there is no evidence ot suggest an IDR of > 45 offers any further benefit.

4. Potential pitch percepts - the emphasis being very much on potential. Pitch perception research suggests that CI users are unable to reliably rank the direction of a pitch change for a pair of notes 1/4 of an octave apart. Current speech processing strategies are very poor at providing pitch information, as they must work within the limitations of electrical stimulation in fluid-filled environment, the emphasis naturally being on speech as that is their main purpose.

5. Sound coding strategies are generally proprietary and largely device-specific. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the advanced bionics strategies are superior to anything else on the market.
Click to expand...

Are you a CI user?

There has been a "independent" studies done in Germany, at the largest implant center. AB came out on top.

Bevilacqua et al. Auditory and Language Abilities in Children: Comparison of Two Different Cochlear Implant Systems. Presentation at the 10th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, San Diego, CA, April 10-12, 2008.

Wolfe J, Mears A. Effect of Input Dynamic Range on Speech Recognition and Music Enjoyment. Poster presentation at the 10th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, San Diego, CA, April 10–12, 2008.

Quick A, Koch DB, Osberger MJ. HiResolution with Fidelity 120 Sound Processing: Listening Benefits in CII and HiRes 90K Implant Users. Poster Presentation at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Lake Tahoe, CA, July 15–20, 2007.
 
FJ, the reason alot of people picked Cochlear because they trust it more. It's hard to trust something that is "new" in the market. Choosing a cochlear implant is scary as it is for alot of people so they look for something they know they can depend on.

I'm sure as AB gain more popularity, people will choose that too, but right now Cochlear been around for a quite a while so it is somewhat like a security blanket. I know the processor is old technology, but they know that the implant is safe because it been done on many people.
 
I am not a CI user, but know many people who use CIs and have a good understanding of auditory prostheses and how they work.

None of the articles you refer to are in peer-review journals yet, but based upon the evidence available:

RE: Bevilacqua et al. - This study focused solely on results from infants, and although children using the advanced bionics devices performed significantly better than the nucleus users at 3 and 6 months after implantation, at twelve months there was no difference in the performance of the two groups. Given that infants vary greatly in terms of their developmental timetable for speech development (often by as much as six months), this particular publication in effect has found no real difference in the performance of users of each device in the long-term, which I would argue is what matters.

RE: Wolfe & Mears - I was unable to find a copy of this presentation in the little time I have available, but the benefits quoted on the advanced bionics websites are perfectly reasonable - a wider dynamic range may very well be preferred for listening to music. This is perfectly reasonable. It does not however indicate that music recognition or pitch perception scores would be any better with advanced bionics devices than those from other manufacturers.

RE: Quick et al., This study does not compare the performance of different manufacturers devices, rather different advanced bionics processing strategies and from my brief reading of it, is not relevant to your argument.

I would recommend that you stick to peer-reviewed journals when looking for accurate comparisons (at least in the case of hearing research). Yes they can be expensive, but good ones are well worth the money. Of late I would recommend "Wilson, B. S., & Dorman, M. F. (2008). Cochlear implants: A remarkable future and a brilliant past. Hearing Research, 242, 3-21." for a good review of the literature overall. Manufacturers will quote whichever research is best for their financial interests. It's best to look at long-term outcomes from all devices when making choices.

At this point in time I wouldn't argue heavily in favour of one device over another, except to ensure that the device met your needs, was reliable and had good long-term support. After that, performance largely comes down to biological factors inherant to the implantee and proper programming and management by an audiologist and the support of your family, peers and habilitationists.
 
I'm curious as to why you seem to know so much, so quickly, but then in another post you said that an implant was connected to a child's brain....

Odd...

Also, you seem to post biased toward one brand, but you haven't told us anything about yourself.

Do you work for a CI company?
 
faire_jour said:
Also, you seem to post biased toward one brand, but you haven't told us anything about yourself.

Do you work for a CI company?
Click to expand...

I'm not biased towards any brand, indeed although I feel that CIs are the right option for many people, I also feel that all CI users would be wise to learn sign language and become involved in the deaf community as we never know the course the future may take. I have learned done courses in sign language myself, and find it very useful.

I do not work for any CI manufacturers, rather I am an independent researcher of sorts. What I am against marketing people using the results of studies in an attempt to place themselves above the competition, when really the science doesn't stack up. Feel free to bring any claims, and I'll do my best to see whether they're justified.
 
1. Are you Deaf?
2. Who do you work for?
3. What is your connection to cochlear implants?
4. How do you have experience with children and ci's?
 
How about you tell me a bit about yourself first faire_jour ;)

If I prefer to remain annoymous then let that be my business, as if it were otherwise I may choose to be elsewhere. All you need know is that I have some experience in such matters, but do not claim to be an expert, nor be the final word on any matter in this world. As I said above "Feel free to bring any claims, and I'll do my best to see whether they're justified." You may believe what you want. That is your prerogative ;)
 
Resolution said:
How about you tell me a bit about yourself first faire_jour ;)

If I prefer to remain annoymous then let that be my business, as if it were otherwise I may choose to be elsewhere. All you need know is that I have some experience in such matters, but do not claim to be an expert, nor be the final word on any matter in this world. As I said above "Feel free to bring any claims, and I'll do my best to see whether they're justified." You may believe what you want. That is your prerogative ;)
Click to expand...

i am the hearing parent of a deaf child with an ab implant. but everyone here knows that. i dont trust you.
 
faire_jour said:
i am the hearing parent of a deaf child with an ab implant. but everyone here knows that. i dont trust you.
Click to expand...

So long as you question marketing claims without reliable proof of evidence, then I'm fine with that :) You will however find that most of what I commented on above is in the Wilson & Dorman (2008) article cited. It really is a good read, although perhaps a bit difficult.
 
Resolution said:
So long as you question marketing claims without reliable proof of evidence, then I'm fine with that :) You will however find that most of what I commented on above is in the Wilson & Dorman (2008) article cited. It really is a good read, although perhaps a bit difficult.
Click to expand...

you should explain your motives for being here. your presence feels suspect.
 
faire_jour said:
you should explain your motives for being here. your presence feels suspect.
Click to expand...

I have already done so. If you wish to confirm whether what I have written is true, you might read this article. I'm sure if you email Blake Wilson, he will be happy to send you a copy for free.

You know, have you even considered that I might have good reasons, rational and reasonable reasons to want to remain annoymous? Stupid American liability laws. Farewell then.
 
Last edited:
Resolution, You're not CI user. Why you're here for? Are you against CI?



I rather to get Nucleus 5 over AB.
 
Let me compare my device to my competitors device and I'm going to let my competitors device look better. Common. You take the comparison for what it's worth. A commercial.
 
When I did some research for my CI, I used third party research to get technical specs not the manufacturers and reviewed tons of reviews by the users themselves and talked to serveral users personally.

Every manufacturer is going to claim they're the best. All three manufacturers are good and the only time when one is better than other is because of the personal priorities of the features the individual wants in their CIs. For some people is the technology, others it's the batteries, and still others it may be the looks of the processor or even how old the manufacturer is.

JC
 
Resolution I agree with the other users here. I've read your other posts and you seem to be here simply to be picking debates with people.

JC
AB Cochlear Implant right ear
 
I use the AB and I have nothing but positive things to say about this implant.
 
I didn't know other CI technology existed besides the Nucleus 5.

There is a lot to think about.
 
Back
Top