Re: Some facts I want to share

[Guest guest]

Good afternoon, Carol,

Your post was interesting, but, as you point out yourself, it's a lot of

very technical 'stuff'. Most of us, no matter what implant brand we have or

intend to get, care most about how well we hear with it, yes? I know people

who have CI's who aren't on any of the internet forums and could care less

about all the techy stuff. (not you, , lol!) They just want to hear

better than they did with hearing aids, and that's the goal. I can't refute

anything you've said here, nor do I want to. What I CAN say with certainty,

is that I was in the trials for the AB 120 channels for several months.

Longer than most trial participants because the holidays intervened, and

folks were on vacation, etc. I was laying low, too, hoping they'd forget

about me, and not ask me to give it back. Needless to say, eventually I had

to give back the 120 processor, and the amazing hearing I had along with it.

Even if I couldn't hear any better, the amazing battery life alone, that Deb

H. mentioned in her post yesterday is worth it. Bottom line is, when I had

the 120, I heard so well that I forgot I am deaf, and that I am hearing with

equipment. I am late deafened, and didn't start losing my hearing at all

until age 38. I'm 52 now. So I have a real clear memory of what normal

hearing is like. With the 120, I had it back, I believe I heard everything

anyone else heard.

I say all this because you said in your post that the statement 'the next

breakthrough' bothers you. And then you go into the techy stuff. Which is

fine for some, but for me and so many others, it's just not important. What

is important is how well I hear. With the 120, I had the best hearing since

before I began to go deaf. Hi-res is great, I can hear fine. But when the

120 comes out, I'll have a pretty healthy trade in value I'm sure, as I've

had my CI for over a year now. I'm not rich, but I promise you I will be at

the door, the first one in line when the 120 becomes availiable, because I

want it. I can hear with it, in a way I haven't heard since my hearing loss

began. I'm glad that some folks understand the techy stuff, but I certainly

understand what helps me hear best. For me, from experience, the 120 is

indeed, 'the next breakthrough'. I don't have to believe it or disbelieve

it, I know it to be true.

Binns

----Original Message Follows----

From: " carol burns " <lvmyci@...>

Reply-

< >

Subject: Some facts I want to share

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:48:43 -0500

Hi everyone!

I know we have many people here who are in the process of sorting through

the information that is posted here. There was a post last week that

bothered me, because I felt it mis-represented some facts about the AB 120

study and comments about the Nucleus Freedom. I double checked with my

resource at Cochlear, just to be sure I am standing on solid ground with the

information I wish to share. I hope and pray this does not cause a ruckus

(or worse, a brand war) here, because it is definitely not my intent. I

just want respect for the facts as they are. Candidates need to see all

sides of the issues/information being shared here.

First of all, I am told pitch steering is not a new idea--there is research

dating back to the 80's that looked at this, but it didn't show significant

promise. What bothers me is that this is being promoted as " the next

breakthrough " . There isn't any scientific data to support it.

Let me tell you why I say this. Cochlear recently conducted a study

(similar to AB's 120 study) to look at how many different pitches N24 and

Freedom users could detect across the electrode array. Nucleus subjects

were able to hear an average of 161 different pitches. The average that

AB's 120 study users heard was 127.

Of course, I know people will raise the objection that AB has independent

current sources so they can do what the Freedom and N24 can't. While it is

true they have independent current sources and the Nucleus device has 1, the

Nucleus 24 and Freedom are able to deliver the very same pitch

steering--just in a different manner. My point: Independent current

sources are not necessary to deliver pitch steering. Cochlear has been doing

this for years (since the release of the Nucleus 24 device); so what AB is

tells us is " the next best thing " already happens automatically with the ACE

strategy today. I participate in music studies at the U of Iowa, and I am

proof positive that my N24 is providing me with pitch perception based on

study outcomes.

Many people I talk to think the AB device is stimulating 120 channels at

once. This is not really the case. Here is a pretty good analogy of what

is happening that I would like to share.

Say you have satellite TV that has the OPTION of getting 120 stations

(channels). However, there are only 15 broadcasting stations available to

you (think AB's 15 channels) - (they actually have 16 channels, but to

use virtual channels, they have to pair the channels to get the virtual

channel, which causes them to lose one channel).

Despite your TV being able to receive 120 stations, there are still only 15

broadcasts stations available, you have to pick where you want those 15

stations to be out of the 120 location options.

This is how AB's software works right now. It does not stimulate 120

channels at once. It can only stimulate 15 channels per cycle, so a person

is not really getting 120 channels at one time.

I realize this is more technical stuff than some care to delve into. My

layperson's advice is this.

To all candidates, please talk to as many people as you can to learn more

about the differences in the implant systems. It is true that they all

work, just differently. Yes, there is competition to build the best

implant. (Good for us as consumers of the products!)

What I did way back when there was no internet to surf or people to share

experiences with on lists such as this:

I observed how well people were functioning in as many different situations

with the various devices available at that time. (I only had the option of

2 devices ten years ago) I tried to find people who had similar hearing

histories to my own. Talk to the audiologists at your center and learn as

much about the features of the different implant systems and the companies

that make them. Reliability is a big consideration, since it will reside in

your head for a long time to come! Consider your lifestyle and how it will

fit. Put the system on your ear, complete with battery pack fully loaded.

Alice has done a great job of putting together a list of things to do

available at the home page of this site: www..com

<http://www..com/>

To all of you who are embarking on this incredible journey - I wish you all

the best. There is truly no WRONG decision to have the cochlear implant

once you have been evaluated and deemed an appropriate candidate. To the

people awaiting surgery, hang in there be good to yourself during your

recovery. To those newly activated; keep your expectations low and your

hopes high! And remember the infamous three P's: Patience, Practice and

Persistence (and I throw in a dose of prayer!)

Have a great weekend!

Warmly, Carol in WI

[Guest guest]

Carol,

Let me tell you why I say this. Cochlear recently conducted a study

(similar to AB's 120 study) to look at how many different pitches N24 and

Freedom users could detect across the electrode array. Nucleus subjects

were able to hear an average of 161 different pitches. The average that

AB's 120 study users heard was 127.

And how was this accomplished? Regardless...the ability to perceive the pitches

in the manner you describe here is an individual thing..not a device limitation.

There are hearing people who are " tone deaf " ..unable to tell the difference from

one pitch to another. Then there is an AB implantee with perfect pitch across

the board. The decision to go with 120 Channels to start was based on the

average, however they number of pitches possible with the technology is far

beyond 127 and there are those in the study that heard up to 500 or so pitches.

This published study is available for us to read online, as you obviously read

it (or your contact)...where is Cochlear's? For that matter, where is Cochlear

technical device specs and why are they kept from the public when no other

electronic device sold does this?

Of course, I know people will raise the objection that AB has independent

current sources so they can do what the Freedom and N24 can't. While it is

true they have independent current sources and the Nucleus device has 1, the

Nucleus 24 and Freedom are able to deliver the very same pitch

steering--just in a different manner. My point: Independent current

sources are not necessary to deliver pitch steering. Cochlear has been doing

this for years (since the release of the Nucleus 24 device); so what AB is

tells us is " the next best thing " already happens automatically with the ACE

strategy today. I participate in music studies at the U of Iowa, and I am

proof positive that my N24 is providing me with pitch perception based on

study outcomes.

Carol...the Nucleus is not able to deliver the very same pitch steering " in a

different manner. " It uses current shorting. However, Ace is NOT even close to

what 120 Channels is. Hi-Ace is a conservative version of Hi-Res, which already

uses channel steering. Current shorting allows the Nucleus to double the

channels, but that is it. You are looking at an internal device limitation of

44 channels with a slower stimulation rate and roving strategy with the Nucleus.

This is fixed. Period.

The AB device works to deliver more accurate representation of sound...which

aids in hearing in noise without external interference. With a single implant,

the user faces a double whammy with hearing in noise due to the (usual) combo of

insufficient stimulation to process complex sound info...compressing the overall

sound, and the fact they are hearing out of one ear. Hearing in noise with one

ear is possible..but the user needs to have the sound information that is

delivered be as true to the original as possible. The Freedom assists in

getting around the internal device limitation by using dual mics. Hi-Res

accomplishes it to a degree by providing truer representation of the sound

info...120 takes this even further.

Ace nor Hi Ace does not already deliver this and telling people this is very

much an outright lie. Where are the raves over using HI-Ace anyway?

Many people I talk to think the AB device is stimulating 120 channels at

once. This is not really the case. Here is a pretty good analogy of what

is happening that I would like to share.

Say you have satellite TV that has the OPTION of getting 120 stations

(channels). However, there are only 15 broadcasting stations available to

you (think AB's 15 channels) - (they actually have 16 channels, but to

use virtual channels, they have to pair the channels to get the virtual

channel, which causes them to lose one channel).

Despite your TV being able to receive 120 stations, there are still only 15

broadcasts stations available, you have to pick where you want those 15

stations to be out of the 120 location options.

This is how AB's software works right now. It does not stimulate 120

channels at once. It can only stimulate 15 channels per cycle, so a person

is not really getting 120 channels at one time.

This is a pretty poor analogy. What you fail to mention is the cycles are done

so rapidly with 120 Channels that the user perception just that....120 Channels.

If you want to use TV's for such an analogy, it's the " drawing " of the image

that you see on TV that needs to be used here. The image you see on TV is

produced by similar sweeping patterns, yet to your eye..you see just the

complete image. This is true whether you are getting 120 channels or 1200

channels.

For your analogy to work, you'd have to put it as the 15 station options are

switching through so quickly that from the viewer's perspective, 120 stations

are available at all times, with the option to expand your station package to

500 and beyond.

I'll let even more technical people spell out the facts here as they are sure to

follow...but your post does little to dessiminate " facts. " It is not your

decision people are making on a device and twisting information to confuse them

provides no benefit to them, especially telling them that what is coming up with

120 Channels is already available on the 3G and Freedom. If someone actually

made a decision based on what you stated and then later found this information

to be completely untrue....do you really want that that kind of karma? I may be

a supporter for my device...but I'll be damned if I mislead potential implantees

by saying my device can do something that it can't. If I have given wrong

information about my device, then I'd certainly want to be corrected. When

people ask me for advice on a brand, I want to give them the facts so I know

they are making a decision based on the facts...not because I have an agenda.

My agenda is that a CI candidate has the facts to make a clear decision...not

marketing or spin. I don't care if they go with Nucleus or AB...only that they

are making their decision with clear and correct information. I could not live

with myself if I went around attempting to steer people towards " my " device by

using propaganda.

[Guest guest]

I think that the use of the words 120 Channels, in itself, IS

misleading and IS marketing and spin. Its pretty obvious that

Cochlear and AB are vying for the biggest market share. When they

start talking about implants with 120 electrodes, then I will listen

a bit more closely.

Ted F.

> Carol...the Nucleus is not able to deliver the very same pitch

>steering " in a different manner. " It uses current shorting.

>However, Ace is NOT even close to what 120 Channels is. Hi-Ace is a

>conservative version of Hi-Res, which already uses channel steering.

>Current shorting allows the Nucleus to double the channels, but that

>is it. You are looking at an internal device limitation of 44

>channels with a slower stimulation rate and roving strategy with the

>Nucleus. This is fixed. Period.

>When people ask me for advice on a brand, I want to give them the

>facts so I know they are making a decision based on the facts...not

>because I have an agenda. My agenda is that a CI candidate has the

>facts to make a clear decision...not marketing or spin.

[Guest guest]

Ted,

It isn't misleading. There is no confusion in the difference between Channels

and Electrodes. You are getting 120 Virtual Channels. It's not all about the

electrodes, which is unfortunate because the general assumption is you are

getting more with 24 electrodes over 16 without understanding how they actually

work. You can have a row of 24 fixed spotlights, each with an alternate

refraction point, or a row of 16 swivel mounted spotlights. Guess which one is

going to have more lighting coverage? At a basic level, both types are fixated

and focus on the speech range so both provide the same basic benefit. But when

you want more detail than that..it isn't equal.

As a music lover, I would not trust the love of my life with anyone else. Part

of my decision was based on the fact that very few Cochlear implantees could

share any knowledgeable details about their experience with music. Most were

incidental or very passive, unable to tell me what they were hearing. AB

Implantees on the other hand were another story, that is where I was hearing

from music fanatics who understood the mechanics and details of music...then

could convey them. This is my personal observation..not propaganda or

marketing.

K is the only Cochlear implantee I've seen who genuinely reports on her

music enjoyment..in addition to her voice lessons. I admire her enough to give

her kudos here for making it work for her. So it is certainly possible to enjoy

music with Cochlear...but I needed more than one person's experience. I also

needed a company who's mission was to give the full spectrum of sound and music

to implantees...who was currently focused on and putting their resources forth

into making that a reality....a company focused on filtering what we hear and

telling us that because we have damaged ears we need to be told what's

important...did not fall in line with my goals.

There are plenty of Cochlear recipients that talk about their music

enjoyment....including my friend implanted with one...but when further

questioned, I discovered that all too often they seemed to be caught up in

hearing the " pretty colors " but none of them could tell me exactly what those

" pretty colors " were. I'm a former guitarist (I got busy) with some keyboard

experience and music theory. Passive-incidential music listening is not my bag.

Re: Some facts I want to share

I think that the use of the words 120 Channels, in itself, IS

misleading and IS marketing and spin. Its pretty obvious that

Cochlear and AB are vying for the biggest market share. When they

start talking about implants with 120 electrodes, then I will listen

a bit more closely.

Ted F.

> Carol...the Nucleus is not able to deliver the very same pitch

>steering " in a different manner. " It uses current shorting.

>However, Ace is NOT even close to what 120 Channels is. Hi-Ace is a

>conservative version of Hi-Res, which already uses channel steering.

>Current shorting allows the Nucleus to double the channels, but that

>is it. You are looking at an internal device limitation of 44

>channels with a slower stimulation rate and roving strategy with the

>Nucleus. This is fixed. Period.

>When people ask me for advice on a brand, I want to give them the

>facts so I know they are making a decision based on the facts...not

>because I have an agenda. My agenda is that a CI candidate has the

>facts to make a clear decision...not marketing or spin.

[Guest guest]

,

Two things. One, please, when you quote, please indicate what is quoted

and what is the reply. A person using a screen reader is not going to know

what is what. For that matter, you way over quoted. Its not necessary.

Its common etiquette to quote the bare minimum to make the reply relevant.

Second, are there " independent " studies to back up the claims regarding

number of pitches perceived by test subjects, using both Cochlear and AB

devices?

*---* *---* *---* *---* *---*

My house is on the median strip of a highway. You don't really notice,

except I have to leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.

& Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie)

Newport, Oregon

N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup

rclark0276@...

http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/

[Guest guest]

,

You did a pretty complete job of clarifying Carol's so-called facts.

She's right in that Current Steering is not a new idea, but AB's

devices are the only ones that have ever been able to do it.

Since the C1.2 they have been capable of doing it because they can

fire adjacent electrodes at exactly the same time and 'steer'

current to desired locations between the physical contact points.

HOWEVER, the only type of current steering we've seen to date is

AB's SAS strategy, which is a simultaneous analog technique.

Since the mid-late 90s, it's been capable of bipolar firing pairs of

electrodes in their SAS strategy, though not for more virtual

channels, but to reduce noise from channel interaction inherent to a

simultaneous strategy like SAS. Using pairs puts the stimulation

spots further apart and steering provides more accurate control of

the current spread itself. So, with further spacing and better

current control, you get less interaction noise.

NOW, the reason we haven't seen current steering for virtual

channels until recently is NOT because it's fruitless, but because,

like SAS, paired electrode firing requires more energy and faster

computers. AB wagered, when they designed the CII and 90k, that

battery technology, digital processing chip efficiencies, and power

management components(all external) would improve to make a BTE with

real current steering actually practical. So in 01 they introduced

an implant in anticipation of these technology enhancements. That

day has come, and AB patients (since 2001) will reap the benefits of

their forward thinking.

The normal cochlea has about 18,000 hair cells and it is believed

that groups of 12 respond to each pitch (frequency/channel), giving

the human ear perception of about 1500 pitches or channels.

With 'Steering', the 90k is capable of targeting 1,000s of locations

or channels, making it theoretically possible to deliver all 1500

pitches with the right software and BTE someday. For the first

generation, they are targeting 121. Which is 7 virtual channels

between each of 15 pairs, plus the 16 physical contact points = 121.

The N24C, as good and reliable of an implant it is, wasn't designed

to do this. In the short term Cochlear may try current shorting,

which they've obviously tested, but it's limited to a max of 43, and

one for which HA batteries may not be sufficient. There's no way to

test it beyond 43 because it's physically incapable of doing

anymore. Shorting merely allows stimulation at the center-point

between each pair of electrodes - thus the max of 43 channels, and

it theoretically could suffer from more channel interaction since I

don't believe shorting gives better control of current spread.

Although the C (curved tip) aspect is relatively new, the basic

design is fairly old. It's reaching the point where it's capacity

is becoming fully tapped. It's had a good long run, and been a good

implant, but sooner or later Cochlear will replace it with something

entirely new. Especially now that Med El's Pulsar is also cutting

edge (assuming they release new software for it soon).

As I've said before, it's still very good news that 43 will be

possible for Freedom/3G patients, but to stay competitive they will

have to replace the N24.

AB chose to replace their older technology, the C1.2, back in 2001

as they looked forward to practical virtual channels. Steering is

possible on the C1.2, but it's not as power efficient, so it'll take

longer to be practical.

The TV station analogy is really a straw man (easy to shoot, but

imcomplete).

The Nucleus HiAce is a better analogy to use.

With HiAce and the Freedom/N24 implant, there are 22 potential

channels.

However, the user is never stimulated with all 22 for any moment of

sound (represented by a sweep of the array). 8-12 channels is what

you get with each sweep of the cochlea, and those used vary

depending on the sound coming in, although (I believe) they are an

adjacent 8-12, rather than a random selection from the 22.

With Current Shorting you'll probably still get only 8-12 out of 43

because of power and speed requirements. The N24 has been a great

design, but it's no longer cutting edge. It is aging and that

happens to all technology. That's not a slam against Cochlear. In

fact it's competed quite well so far, and being the most tested it

has possibly the highest reliability, but it is reaching it's

capacities. If I had to wager, I'd bet Cochlear is already working

on a newer implant design.

With HiRes you get all 16 with every sweep.

With HiRes 120, you'll get 15 (possibly 16) with each sweep, but

they do not have to be adjacent.

The other difference is that the 90k is much faster at sweeping,

which is helpful when trying to deliver more channels. That's why

it's called the '90k'.

Prior to HR120, AB is supposedly using only 10% of it's capacity,

and it might be fair to say that with HiAce Cochlear is reaching 85-

90% of the N24's capacity, which is why I'd wager they are working

on something new.

So, although current steering is not a new 'theory', it is

breakthrough to use it for 120 virtual channels on a BTE device with

15-30hr battery life.

It's a scheme that Cochlear is obviously investigating (as indicated

by their Current Shorting Trial), and it appears MedEl is looking at

(as indicated by the Pulsar's 24 independent output circuits).

Each advance drives the competition to even further development, and

ultimately to better hearing for CI patients...regardless of brand.

If any company ever develops such a huge advancement that successful

hearing can't even be compared to users of other devices, it will be

possible to upgrade via reimplantation to the same brand or

otherwise. Many of the first generation patients have had their

devices replaced with multi-channel implants very successfully.

Other's because of device failures from all brands. That's the good

news and why we should all be excited about breakthroughs.

It remains to be seen if Virtual Channels is significant enough for

the FDA (or Insurance) to approve 'optional' upgrades, but it is

looking beneficial enough for the competition to be considering

similar software upgrades. And that's good news for everyone!

Steve

>

> Carol,

>

> Let me tell you why I say this. Cochlear recently conducted a

study

> (similar to AB's 120 study) to look at how many different pitches

N24 and

> Freedom users could detect across the electrode array. Nucleus

subjects

> were able to hear an average of 161 different pitches. The

average that

> AB's 120 study users heard was 127.

>

> And how was this accomplished? Regardless...the ability to

perceive the pitches in the manner you describe here is an

individual thing..not a device limitation. There are hearing people

who are " tone deaf " ..unable to tell the difference from one pitch to

another. Then there is an AB implantee with perfect pitch across

the board. The decision to go with 120 Channels to start was based

on the average, however they number of pitches possible with the

technology is far beyond 127 and there are those in the study that

heard up to 500 or so pitches. This published study is available

for us to read online, as you obviously read it (or your

contact)...where is Cochlear's? For that matter, where is Cochlear

technical device specs and why are they kept from the public when no

other electronic device sold does this?

>

> Of course, I know people will raise the objection that AB has

independent

> current sources so they can do what the Freedom and N24 can't.

While it is

> true they have independent current sources and the Nucleus device

has 1, the

> Nucleus 24 and Freedom are able to deliver the very same pitch

> steering--just in a different manner. My point: Independent

current

> sources are not necessary to deliver pitch steering. Cochlear has

been doing

> this for years (since the release of the Nucleus 24 device); so

what AB is

> tells us is " the next best thing " already happens automatically

with the ACE

> strategy today. I participate in music studies at the U of Iowa,

and I am

> proof positive that my N24 is providing me with pitch perception

based on

> study outcomes.

>

> Carol...the Nucleus is not able to deliver the very same pitch

steering " in a different manner. " It uses current shorting.

However, Ace is NOT even close to what 120 Channels is. Hi-Ace is a

conservative version of Hi-Res, which already uses channel

steering. Current shorting allows the Nucleus to double the

channels, but that is it. You are looking at an internal device

limitation of 44 channels with a slower stimulation rate and roving

strategy with the Nucleus. This is fixed. Period.

>

> The AB device works to deliver more accurate representation of

sound...which aids in hearing in noise without external

interference. With a single implant, the user faces a double whammy

with hearing in noise due to the (usual) combo of insufficient

stimulation to process complex sound info...compressing the overall

sound, and the fact they are hearing out of one ear. Hearing in

noise with one ear is possible..but the user needs to have the sound

information that is delivered be as true to the original as

possible. The Freedom assists in getting around the internal device

limitation by using dual mics. Hi-Res accomplishes it to a degree

by providing truer representation of the sound info...120 takes this

even further.

>

> Ace nor Hi Ace does not already deliver this and telling people

this is very much an outright lie. Where are the raves over using

HI-Ace anyway?

>

> Many people I talk to think the AB device is stimulating 120

channels at

> once. This is not really the case. Here is a pretty good analogy

of what

> is happening that I would like to share.

>

> Say you have satellite TV that has the OPTION of getting 120

stations

> (channels). However, there are only 15 broadcasting stations

available to

> you (think AB's 15 channels) - (they actually have 16

channels, but to

> use virtual channels, they have to pair the channels to get the

virtual

> channel, which causes them to lose one channel).

>

> Despite your TV being able to receive 120 stations, there are

still only 15

> broadcasts stations available, you have to pick where you want

those 15

> stations to be out of the 120 location options.

>

> This is how AB's software works right now. It does not stimulate

120

> channels at once. It can only stimulate 15 channels per cycle, so

a person

> is not really getting 120 channels at one time.

>

> This is a pretty poor analogy. What you fail to mention is the

cycles are done so rapidly with 120 Channels that the user

perception just that....120 Channels. If you want to use TV's for

such an analogy, it's the " drawing " of the image that you see on TV

that needs to be used here. The image you see on TV is produced by

similar sweeping patterns, yet to your eye..you see just the

complete image. This is true whether you are getting 120 channels

or 1200 channels.

>

> For your analogy to work, you'd have to put it as the 15 station

options are switching through so quickly that from the viewer's

perspective, 120 stations are available at all times, with the

option to expand your station package to 500 and beyond.

>

> I'll let even more technical people spell out the facts here as

they are sure to follow...but your post does little to

dessiminate " facts. " It is not your decision people are making on a

device and twisting information to confuse them provides no benefit

to them, especially telling them that what is coming up with 120

Channels is already available on the 3G and Freedom. If someone

actually made a decision based on what you stated and then later

found this information to be completely untrue....do you really want

that that kind of karma? I may be a supporter for my device...but

I'll be damned if I mislead potential implantees by saying my device

can do something that it can't. If I have given wrong information

about my device, then I'd certainly want to be corrected. When

people ask me for advice on a brand, I want to give them the facts

so I know they are making a decision based on the facts...not

because I have an agenda. My agenda is that a CI candidate has the

facts to make a clear decision...not marketing or spin. I don't

care if they go with Nucleus or AB...only that they are making their

decision with clear and correct information. I could not live with

myself if I went around attempting to steer people towards " my "

device by using propaganda.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ted,

It's no more spin than Cochlear claiming 22 (or 24) channels for years.

The N22 and 24 are capable of stimulating 22 different locations on

the cochlea (albeit only 8-12 in a sweep), and the 90k with HR120

software is capable of stimulating 121 differnt locations on the

cochlea (15-16 in a sweep).

That's what channels are, stimulation points.

Steve

>

> I think that the use of the words 120 Channels, in itself, IS

> misleading and IS marketing and spin. Its pretty obvious that

> Cochlear and AB are vying for the biggest market share. When they

> start talking about implants with 120 electrodes, then I will listen

> a bit more closely.

>

> Ted F.

[Guest guest]

,

You are right and I apologize. I only recently switched to email and started

sending posts through that as I was going through the site previously. After I

saw the post, I noted there was no separation between the quoted segments and my

statements. So that should be the last time that happens. I can imagine that

was hellish for you.

The 2004 Spahr Dorman study had a melody recognition component. I believe there

are others that have done pitch perception testing, however the gamut of these

were done with previous implant releases and have less value now. I am not

aware of independent research scoring pitch perception among implant users with

channel steering/channel shorting, however these tests would not likely be done

until after the commercial release of 120 Channels where both implants more

easily indepdendently tested. The currently published results were done by AB

researchers for the purpose of supporting continued pursuit of the usage of

current steering, which found that users did improve both pitch perception and

hearing in noise. That is what justified AB's moving forward with it. Just as

we didn't see independent studies comparing CII and 3G users until 2 or so years

after release...the same will go for the Freedom and Harmony. Cochlear's own

studies are still of interest in the same manner as AB's..but we have to wait

for comparisons. My complaint is someone referring to a study done but unable

to produce the documentation that outlines the results. Speaking of which, I'll

be happy to provide the studies done in support of current steering should

anyone be interested.

Re: Some facts I want to share

,

Two things. One, please, when you quote, please indicate what is quoted

and what is the reply. A person using a screen reader is not going to know

what is what. For that matter, you way over quoted. Its not necessary.

Its common etiquette to quote the bare minimum to make the reply relevant.

Second, are there " independent " studies to back up the claims regarding

number of pitches perceived by test subjects, using both Cochlear and AB

devices?

*---* *---* *---* *---* *---*

My house is on the median strip of a highway. You don't really notice,

except I have to leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.

& Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie)

Newport, Oregon

N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup

rclark0276@...

http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/

[Guest guest]

Hi Ted

You raised my curiousity on this one so I went to healthyhearing.com

and did some searches of the latest research there. There were some

interesting articles and items.

But here is a part of an article that explains about the 120 software

" Current steering allows us to create synthetic or virtual channels

between electrode contacts to deliver more frequency information to

the cochlear-implant user. Prior to this technology, the number of

frequency channels was limited by the number of electrode contacts

in the array. Through simultaneous delivery of current to pairs of

adjacent electrodes, stimulation can be " steered " to sites between

the contacts by varying the proportion of current delivered to each

electrode, thereby eliciting pitch percepts that are intermediate to

the two electrodes. The number of distinct pitches that can be heard

defines the number of spectral channels that can be perceived by the

cochlear implant user. It is predicted that increased spectral

resolution will improve music perception and enjoyment in cochlear

implant users "

Copied from

http://www.healthyhearing.com/library/interview_content.asp?

interview_id=720

I found the entire site www.healthyhearing.com to be very

interesting with topics and reseach on all implant brands

Kim

>

> > Carol...the Nucleus is not able to deliver the very same pitch

> >steering " in a different manner. " It uses current shorting.

> >However, Ace is NOT even close to what 120 Channels is. Hi-Ace

is a

> >conservative version of Hi-Res, which already uses channel

steering.

> >Current shorting allows the Nucleus to double the channels, but

that

> >is it. You are looking at an internal device limitation of 44

> >channels with a slower stimulation rate and roving strategy with

the

> >Nucleus. This is fixed. Period.

>

>

> >When people ask me for advice on a brand, I want to give them the

> >facts so I know they are making a decision based on the

facts...not

> >because I have an agenda. My agenda is that a CI candidate has

the

> >facts to make a clear decision...not marketing or spin.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Kim.

That was a good explanation.

I read most of the article as well. Exciting times ahead for all of

us. It would be naive to think that Cochlear and MedEl werent working

on something similar.

Ted F.

> >

> > I think that the use of the words 120 Channels, in itself, IS

> > misleading and IS marketing and spin. Its pretty obvious that

> > Cochlear and AB are vying for the biggest market share. When they

> > start talking about implants with 120 electrodes, then I will

> listen

> > a bit more closely.

> >

> > Ted F.

[Guest guest]

Wow, Kim, thanks for the info and the URL for the current steering

interview. That's the best explanation for how the 120 works that I've

seen.

Virg

[Guest guest]

Hi Ted

You've presented an awesome challenge - to find articles like these

on other products as well. The new stuff is interesting and I would

love to read about the upcomming new software things coming out from

Cochlear and MedEl

Kim B

> > >

> > > I think that the use of the words 120 Channels, in itself, IS

> > > misleading and IS marketing and spin. Its pretty obvious that

> > > Cochlear and AB are vying for the biggest market share. When

they

> > > start talking about implants with 120 electrodes, then I will

> > listen

> > > a bit more closely.

> > >

> > > Ted F.

>

[Guest guest]

Haha, I wasnt issuing challenges to anyone, Kim. I just remarked that

it would be naive to think that Cochlear and MadEl were sitting on

their hands and giving Advanced Bionics a marketing advantage. But of

course, if you come up with anything, I would love to hear about it.

Ted F.

> >

> > Thanks, Kim.

> >

> > That was a good explanation.

> > I read most of the article as well. Exciting times ahead for all

> > of us. It would be naive to think that Cochlear and MedEl werent

> > working on something similar.

> >

> > Ted F.

> >