|
Home > Archive > Hearing loss support > June 2006 > CI 128
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Genesee 2006-04-23, 1:19 am |
| Hi,
Does anyone know more about those novel cochlear implants? There are a
zillion web pages each copying one original anouncement from the university
of Michigan
(http://www.umich.edu/news/index.htm.../Feb06/r020606a).
I mean the more flexible ones, with 128 contact points. Why does it has to
last '4 to 5 years' before they come available? FDA rule? I would expect
that many candidates for CI (those that are not totally desperate) will
postpone their operation now. The anouncements are more than 2 months old
now, I would expect some follow up. Maybe I am not realistic and probably
just impatient..
G
| |
| Mike Burke 2006-04-23, 11:19 am |
| On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:01:03 +0200, "Genesee" <G.N.Seah@unimail.nl>
wrote:
>Hi,
>Does anyone know more about those novel cochlear implants? There are a
>zillion web pages each copying one original anouncement from the university
>of Michigan
>(http://www.umich.edu/news/index.htm.../Feb06/r020606a).
>I mean the more flexible ones, with 128 contact points. Why does it has to
>last '4 to 5 years' before they come available? FDA rule? I would expect
>that many candidates for CI (those that are not totally desperate) will
>postpone their operation now. The anouncements are more than 2 months old
>now, I would expect some follow up. Maybe I am not realistic and probably
>just impatient..
>G
>
Yes, you are. From the news story you referred us to, the magic word
is "could". At this stage it looks like as though it's still in the
'vaporware' stage - a twinkle in the eye of its designers who are no
doubt shopping about for more funding to get their pet project to the
next stage of development/testing. I'll be amazed if it ever gets
into production, let alone actually implanted into a paying customer's
head.
More haste = less speed in this business.
Mike
| |
| Ruben Bergink 2006-06-04, 9:08 am |
|
"Mike Burke" <mburke@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:h4cm42tb4sp4oicffkoasgsfgkc6bh9fqj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:01:03 +0200, "Genesee" <G.N.Seah@unimail.nl>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, you are. From the news story you referred us to, the magic word
> is "could". At this stage it looks like as though it's still in the
> 'vaporware' stage - a twinkle in the eye of its designers who are no
> doubt shopping about for more funding to get their pet project to the
> next stage of development/testing. I'll be amazed if it ever gets
> into production, let alone actually implanted into a paying customer's
> head.
Maybe they are just being careful, as scientists should. After all they know
they have not tested the device in humans yet. This "could" makes it,
perhaps paradoxically, more credible to me.They make some reservations and
don'nt promise a miracle. Also the fact that already announce that it'll
take another 5 years makes a serious impression.
| |
| Mike Burke 2006-06-04, 9:08 am |
| On Wed, 17 May 2006 08:45:06 +0200, "Ruben Bergink"
<R.bergink@netniet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Maybe they are just being careful, as scientists should. After all they know
>they have not tested the device in humans yet. This "could" makes it,
>perhaps paradoxically, more credible to me.They make some reservations and
>don'nt promise a miracle. Also the fact that already announce that it'll
>take another 5 years makes a serious impression.
>
I hope that it works out. The implant I've got inside my head is a
pretty large lump, and it only has 20-something electrodes. But, I
suspect it will outlast me, even if this other thing does get up
within five years or so. :-)
However, my advice to someone who is suitable for a current implant
would be not to wait for 'pie-in-the-sky' future possibilities but to
go ahead and get the best of the current technology available right
now.
Mike
| |
|
|
As with hearing aids, I would not delay waiting for possible future
developments. As far as I can tell the early implant experiments
achieved a major improvement in hearing with only a few contacts. The
current cochlear implants have 24 contacts of which, I think, 22 are
potentially available for programming. Not all of these work in all
implantees though I gather that the success rate of electrodes on the
current implant is pretty high.
Cochlear are experimenting with a 48-contact implant but the
difficulties involved in making this work, when the length of the
electrode array is only 17mm, are obvious.
And I suspect that it is software, rather than hardware, where the
biggest scope for progress in implant technology exists. There is
probably a sharply diminishing returns thing with additional electrodes
whereas software has a long long way to go. 50 years from now (when
they may have 128 electrode implants) they will still be making
improvements to software which will be backwards-compatible with
today's implants (and yesterdays).
If three or four electrodes were enough to change peoples' lives by
enabling them to hear then current implants, with up to 22, represent a
gigantic step forward.
I expect to be implanted later this year and the group can expect to be
bored stiff with my progress reports.
| |
|
| I attended a lecture several years ago by William House, first American to
do a cochlear implant. He said that there is no evidence that a
multi-arrayed implant is any more effective than a single electrode implant.
He still advocated the single implant, which can be removed should
circumstances change, such as for regeneration procedures, should they
become available. While I do not necessarily agree with his assessment, as
this is not my specialty, I would like to comfort those with 22 or fewer
electrodes that their implants are quite adequate and unlikely to be
considered inferior to the greater arrayed implants.
Here is an article about this dichotomy in thought:
http://www.allhear.com/monographs/index.html
Michael Ridenhour
"Ken" <kkerrison@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1148190103.561339.114480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> As with hearing aids, I would not delay waiting for possible future
> developments. As far as I can tell the early implant experiments
> achieved a major improvement in hearing with only a few contacts. The
> current cochlear implants have 24 contacts of which, I think, 22 are
> potentially available for programming. Not all of these work in all
> implantees though I gather that the success rate of electrodes on the
> current implant is pretty high.
> Cochlear are experimenting with a 48-contact implant but the
> difficulties involved in making this work, when the length of the
> electrode array is only 17mm, are obvious.
> And I suspect that it is software, rather than hardware, where the
> biggest scope for progress in implant technology exists. There is
> probably a sharply diminishing returns thing with additional electrodes
> whereas software has a long long way to go. 50 years from now (when
> they may have 128 electrode implants) they will still be making
> improvements to software which will be backwards-compatible with
> today's implants (and yesterdays).
> If three or four electrodes were enough to change peoples' lives by
> enabling them to hear then current implants, with up to 22, represent a
> gigantic step forward.
> I expect to be implanted later this year and the group can expect to be
> bored stiff with my progress reports.
>
| |
| Ruben Bergink 2006-06-04, 9:08 am |
|
"Ken" <kkerrison@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1148190103.561339.114480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> As with hearing aids, I would not delay waiting for possible future
> developments. As far as I can tell the early implant experiments
> achieved a major improvement in hearing with only a few contacts. The
> current cochlear implants have 24 contacts of which, I think, 22 are
> potentially available for programming. Not all of these work in all
> implantees though I gather that the success rate of electrodes on the
> current implant is pretty high.
> Cochlear are experimenting with a 48-contact implant but the
> difficulties involved in making this work, when the length of the
> electrode array is only 17mm, are obvious.
> And I suspect that it is software, rather than hardware, where the
> biggest scope for progress in implant technology exists. There is
> probably a sharply diminishing returns thing with additional electrodes
> whereas software has a long long way to go. 50 years from now (when
> they may have 128 electrode implants) they will still be making
> improvements to software which will be backwards-compatible with
> today's implants (and yesterdays).
> If three or four electrodes were enough to change peoples' lives by
> enabling them to hear then current implants, with up to 22, represent a
> gigantic step forward.
> I expect to be implanted later this year and the group can expect to be
> bored stiff with my progress reports.
Please note that the larger number of contacts was not the only improvement.
There was also this thing that the implants are easier (less difficult) to
insert supposedly leading to lower tones being spared, on which on its turn
would result in better appreciation of music. I can't judge how realistic
this all is, but the I know that the experts said in 1950 or so that humans
would never be in space and that the head of IBM said in 1960 or so that the
world needed only a handful of computers. (Proabably the details of these
anecdotes are all wrong, but you see what I mean)
Ken I seriously hope you will keep us posted, I can't get enough of those
success stories. Many CI candidates can't either.
Good luck
|
| |
|
|