Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Hi Mike, for some reason, except for the bathroom scale, people seem to think bigger numbers mean better. This isn't always true. Many of us with CI's don't max out the speeds that our CI's offer us even though they are available for use, when it comes to the actual programming. To me this would be like purchasing an auto with speed capability up to 130 mph because it can go faster than one with speed capability up to 110 mph, when you actually can only benefit from the speed of 70 mph in real use. More speed means more power consumption, and if I had my choice I would prefer the lower speed and power conservation and with a CI longer battery life. It is not about better or worse products, it is about having choices. Cheers, Ruth 19 years of wonderful hearing with my CI _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of M Jansen Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: Mike R Hi Mike, 90,000 PPS vs l8,182 PPS is a big difference. But are there any studies showing faster is better? Or gives better comprehsion? thanks, one thing that truly sticks out on this chart is AB's 90,000 PPS (Pulses Per Second) VS. Cochlear's 18,182 PPS. Am I missing something here? This is truly a profound difference in technology folks! Royer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Hi Ruth, What you point out is true for many users. The hospital in Dallas presented an interesting (though quite technical) paper recently that described many existing and proposed strategy techniques for CIs. In it they mentioned why this can be true for some. Different strategies use various techniques to try and preserve the timing information believed to aid the brain in discerning competing sounds. All use faster stimulation rates to present the information to the nerve, but when the stimulation rate exceeds the sampling rate (how often the sound environment is captured, analyzed, and processed) those strategies repeat some of the sound information, and the faster they stimulate the more often they repeat captured information. Other techniques increase the sampling rate as well to minimize the need to repeat. Both techniques offer benefits to users and can work well, but for some patients, increasing the frequency of repeating sound info does not offer more clarity - at least that is the best available theory as to why. In general though, all strategy approaches acknowledge that faster processing and stimulation is the best way to preserve important timing cues for the listener to make use of. The higher speeds of the Freedom and Harmony are part of what make them both much better than earlier processors, and one reason why almost everyone who has upgraded to either one loves it. I hope that makes sense. Happy Holidays Steve > > Hi Mike, for some reason, except for the bathroom scale, people seem to > think bigger numbers mean better. This isn't always true. Many of us with > CI's don't max out the speeds that our CI's offer us even though they are > available for use, when it comes to the actual programming. To me this > would be like purchasing an auto with speed capability up to 130 mph because > it can go faster than one with speed capability up to 110 mph, when you > actually can only benefit from the speed of 70 mph in real use. More speed > means more power consumption, and if I had my choice I would prefer the > lower speed and power conservation and with a CI longer battery life. It is > not about better or worse products, it is about having choices. > > Cheers, Ruth > > 19 years of wonderful hearing with my CI > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of > M Jansen > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:24 PM > > Subject: Mike R > > > > Hi Mike, > 90,000 PPS vs l8,182 PPS is a big difference. But are there any > studies showing faster is better? Or gives better comprehsion? > thanks, > > > one thing that truly sticks out on this chart is AB's 90,000 PPS > (Pulses Per Second) VS. Cochlear's 18,182 PPS. Am I missing > something here? This is truly a profound difference in technology folks! > > Royer > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Lydia, N24 users can access all of the features of the Freedom with the exception of Hi-ACE. Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05 Right ear - Nucleus Freedom Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06 Deafblind/Postlingual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Lydia, I am not Steve but cna answer the questions. Correct, Hi Ace is not avaialble to the N24 users. As to the earhook, if you read the manual (I know, who reads those things any more?), it says to pull the thing straight off, no twisiting. Then push the new hook straight on. *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* A computer's attention span is as long as its power cord. & Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie) Newport, Oregon N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup rclark0276@... http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Mike, No one is saying that faster speeds aren't important to anything. Just not too all equally. Like I said before, I use a slow ACE and I can hear plenty conversation in noisy restaurants, yes sometimes I have to lower the sensitivity a bit. I can hear the difference between half notes on the piano. I was able to tell the interval width of 2 notes (not sure how to say that) correctly 80% of the time in music theory class a few years back with my 3G which didn't even utilize all my electrodes. Now I have the Freedom and I know that I hear more than I did before. I'm so glad that your fast speeds and harmony 120 trials are working so well for you. Whatever technology comes our way and improves our hearing is all that matters. In a message dated 12/13/2006 11:11:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, hearmike@... writes: if a faster processor speed was not important to anything, then computers would not come out with incresed processing speeds every 6 months. a fast processing speed in a computer is critical to handle all the multi-tasking computers do..the same is true for CI users. we need the fastest processing speed to enable us to keep up with soudns. This is why, when I was in the harmony trials - i wasn't just hearing my daughter cry on the baby monitor - i was hearing the TYPE of cry (hungry, scared, etc..). And while on a date with my wife, we were conversing normally in an extremely busy Washington DC resturant..yes, above the other enviornmental noises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Lydia, I had a terrible time changing the ear hook on my Freedom. I finally got it off by twisting and pulling. I think some people have resorted to using a pair of pliers. Lynn Fairhope, AL Nucleus Freedom Surgery date: 9/6/06 Activation date: 9/27/06 _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lydia Gregoret Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Mike R [Does anyone know how to get the earhook off the Freedom BTE? I want to put the long one on and the short one won't come off!!] Thanks, Lydia .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=7962067/grpspId=1705013490/msgId =50750/stime=1166048263/nc1=3848443/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 comparing CI processing speeds to a car's vehicle speed is comparing apples to oranges. lets compare apples to apples (CI's vs. computers) -- if a faster processor speed was not important to anything, then computers would not come out with incresed processing speeds every 6 months. a fast processing speed in a computer is critical to handle all the multi-tasking computers do..the same is true for CI users. we need the fastest processing speed to enable us to keep up with soudns. This is why, when I was in the harmony trials - i wasn't just hearing my daughter cry on the baby monitor - i was hearing the TYPE of cry (hungry, scared, etc..). And while on a date with my wife, we were conversing normally in an extremely busy Washington DC resturant..yes, above the other enviornmental noises. Cheers, Royer Advanced Bionics CI > > Hi Mike, for some reason, except for the bathroom scale, people seem to > think bigger numbers mean better. This isn't always true. Many of us with > CI's don't max out the speeds that our CI's offer us even though they are > available for use, when it comes to the actual programming. To me this > would be like purchasing an auto with speed capability up to 130 mph because > it can go faster than one with speed capability up to 110 mph, when you > actually can only benefit from the speed of 70 mph in real use. More speed > means more power consumption, and if I had my choice I would prefer the > lower speed and power conservation and with a CI longer battery life. It is > not about better or worse products, it is about having choices. > > Cheers, Ruth > > 19 years of wonderful hearing with my CI > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of > M Jansen > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:24 PM > > Subject: Mike R > > > > Hi Mike, > 90,000 PPS vs l8,182 PPS is a big difference. But are there any > studies showing faster is better? Or gives better comprehsion? > thanks, > > > one thing that truly sticks out on this chart is AB's 90,000 PPS > (Pulses Per Second) VS. Cochlear's 18,182 PPS. Am I missing > something here? This is truly a profound difference in technology folks! > > Royer > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 They may not have faster stimulation rates available, but I believe the Freedom processor is a faster computer than the 3G. But, I wouldn't say increased speed is the only reason people prefer the upgrades, just that it's one of the reasons. Both the Freedom bte and implant increase speed, because it is helpful for retaining the subtle timing cues available in the sound environment. Steve > > > > ... > > In general though, all strategy approaches acknowledge that faster > > processing and stimulation is the best way to preserve important > > timing cues for the listener to make use of. The higher speeds of > > the Freedom and Harmony are part of what make them both much better > > than earlier processors, and one reason why almost everyone who has > > upgraded to either one loves it. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 >>Both the Freedom bte and implant increase speed, because it is helpful for retaining the subtle timing cues available in the sound environment.<< Steve, Could you explain what you mean by this statement? In comparing my 3G and Freedom BTEs, I don't experience any delay in sound. What I hear is instantaneous. Is this what you are referring to when you talk about " subtle timing cues? " Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05 Right ear - Nucleus Freedom Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06 Deafblind/Postlingual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Mike, I tried the higher speeds and found that the higher the speed, the more the high frequencies kind of blended in and got lost. It made sounds higher pitched, but less clear for me. I ended up with the 1200 speed on Ace. AB uses a completely different technology. It seems like I remember a post from Mike " Ears Hopin " (where's he been lately?) saying that his audie said that AB users preferred higher speeds and Nucleus users generally liked the slower speeds. It's whatever works for you that's important. Lynn Fairhope, AL Nucleus Freedom Surgery date: 9/6/06 Activation date: 9/27/06 _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maroyer03 Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Mike R comparing CI processing speeds to a car's vehicle speed is comparing apples to oranges. lets compare apples to apples (CI's vs. computers) -- if a faster processor speed was not important to anything, then computers would not come out with incresed processing speeds every 6 months. a fast processing speed in a computer is critical to handle all the multi-tasking computers do..the same is true for CI users. we need the fastest processing speed to enable us to keep up with soudns. This is why, when I was in the harmony trials - i wasn't just hearing my daughter cry on the baby monitor - i was hearing the TYPE of cry (hungry, scared, etc..). And while on a date with my wife, we were conversing normally in an extremely busy Washington DC resturant..yes, above the other enviornmental noises. Cheers, Royer Advanced Bionics CI .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=7962067/grpspId=1705013490/msgId =50768/stime=1166069298/nc1=3848432/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Hi , I apologize if i wasn't clear. You are correct, and you shouldn't experience any delay in sound. I didn't mean that, but something a bit different. I'll use an analogy to try and explain, though forgive me if this fails as well. I can't remember if you had sight earlier in life, so my apologies is this doesn't cut it. In the early days of movie film, they used 16 frames/second to capture snapshots in quick succession that could be played back at the same speed and appear to be real live motion as we experience it in the world. 'Movies' became a new word in the English dictionary. However, 16 frames/second was at times not ideal. For an extreme example, think of a Charlie Chaplin movie, and how sometimes he appeared to jump a bit in his movements. It was choppy. Later, with technology advances, the film industry moved to 24 frames/second, because the faster capture and playback speed was more pleasing to the eyes, as it appeared more " real " . All they really achieved was capturing more snapshots of continuous movement, which of course made the playback appear more like reality. Going faster than 24 does improve the accuracy, especially in fine details, but for general viewing 24fps was a sufficient compromise between a pleasing sense of 'real' without excessive use of film. It's not the best replay of reality, but it's a good compromise. However, if you've ever seen a video of a bee or hummingbird in flight at slow motion, it was probably filmed at an even higher speed so the details of very fast movement are discernable. This is even better reality, but at a higher cost (more film, more expensive camera, more expensive projector etc.) Really there are 2 sides to this equation. 1 is the rate of capture. The other is the rate of playback. In film, they have always been identical. It is displayed exactly as captured. Sound capture/playbak is similar. With the digital age, computer chips process captured information, which means they enhance and convert it before presenting it to a user. Ultimately the playback is not identical to the capture. The presentation attempts to replicate what's captured as accurately as possible, at least as much as the brain can discern. We all know that our processors are little computers which 'process' the captured sound and replays it as electrical pulses against our cochlea. What is delivered is definitely not identical to what the microphone captures. Different strategies do different enhancing than others, but regardless, it all takes time and energy to do. Like film, CI sound is captured and replayed in snapshots, with the additional steps of converting and enhancing those snapshots. It takes time to do the enhancing and conversion, and transmission to the implant, as well as power to do it all. So, what I mean is the Freedom is a newer, higher bit (I think 16- bit) processor which can process and enhance more sound snapshots and do it much faster than the 3G. Harmony is also a bigger faster processor than the Auria. Does anyone remember the days when computers (and Windows) went from 16 bit to 32 bit? And with Vista we will go from 32 bit to 64 bit processing. The latest BTE processors, which are very small computers, are upgrades to 16 bit computers which means they process more information, in bigger chunks (16 bit chunks) at faster rates than their predecessors. If memory serves me well, a 16 bit computer is the equivalent of an Intel 286 PC. But don't feel cheated. It's taken this long to make a 286 class computer small enough, cool enough, and power efficient enough to put on your ear. Remember how big the first Compaq 286 suitcase 'portable' PCs were??? Would you want to wear that around?? How about 2 of them for bilateral CIs?? These faster processors are capable of taking and processing more snapshots/second of the sound and deliver it to the ear. Ultimately this results in a more accurate representation. Like film going to 24 frames/second from 16, much less information from the reality continuum is lost between each snapshot. In the example of film, less movement is lost - ie less change takes place between shots, making the replay seem more smooth and real. In sound, it means less variation of pitch, loudness, harmonics etc is lost between each snapshot, making the reproduction seem more smooth and 'real'. Additionally, the more accurately the delivery is timed, the more the brain is able to make use of subtle timing differences to discern sounds from one another. Because of this, bilateral hearing makes speed even more relavent. The biggest hurdle still being the clock speed of a 16 bit chip. The timing sensitivity of sound to the brain is quite small, like the frame speed needed to see a hummingbird flap it's wings, and as good as today's products are they still aren't quite that fast. If they could put a Crey super computer on your ear and run it with teeny batteries, maybe it would be near perfect, but we're not there yet. We're just now reaching PC-286 speeds in a convenient format, which is also very important. Remember all the chat this year about BWPs vs BTEs, especially among those using the Platinum BWP so they would have an unopened Auria to upgrade for free to a Harmony? Convenience is a relavent trade-off. Anyway, my statement was intended to say that the Freedom processor sounds better and more 'real' in part because it is a higher capacity and faster computer than the 3G. But you shouldn't hear a delay because there isn't any. You're just getting more frames and thus a smoother simulated continuum of sound from the Freedom, which is more pleasing and more 'real' sounding. Delivery speed is just one part of this issue. The Freedom is indeed able to deliver at faster rates (at least with the Freedom Implant device), although not everyone finds preference at the fastest delievery speeds. Whenever someone builds software for a computer chip, they must make trade-offs depending upon what the priority of the software is. Only so much processing can be achieved in the clock cycle of a given chip, because of it's speed. Remember that 286s ran Lotus 123 very well, but they can't run Windows XP and Excel at all. It has nothing to do with their age. When you upgrade your computer because it gets old and tired, it's not because it wears out like our bodies which can no longer can do what they could at 18; it's because we're asking it to do more than it ever could when we ask it to run Windows XP and Excel. So, a CI chip can't do everything they might want it to do at the same time, and that's partly why different processing strategies focus on different priorities. Ace and Hi-Ace do many things very well, because it's prioritized to do those things within the capacities of the teeny computers it runs on. It's not a criticism to aknowledge that it has to compromise to prioritize. HiRes and CIS+ do as well. Each focuses on certain priorities and not others, which are very different from one another even though they all deliver quite good speech results in patients. One of the trade-offs inherent to Ace-type processing effects the benefits of stimulation speed (separate from processing speed). This may simply be that Ace was originally designed for the slower 3G and is something they will change in the future, or it may be an intrinsic conflict to another priority Ace is designed to address. I'm not absolutely sure, but it doesn't prevent Ace from doing a very good job, so it's not really a concerning issue, though it can help explain why you and others prefer a slower speed of stimulation. Think again of the film example. Imagine that playing back 24 frames/sec was preferable, but there is some reason capturing & processing a full 24 impacts some color preservation, so one way the engineers found to compromise between the color preservation priority and the higher fps priority was to simply replicate every 3rd frame. This would mean that out of 24 frames, 1 and 2 would be unique, but 3 would be a copy of 2, then 4-5 unique, but 6 would be a copy of 5 etc. Let's say the engineers found this method of playing back 24fps made the movie more pleasant than w/o losing too much of the color preservation even though it wasn't as pleasant as using 24 unique frames. It is a balance to give some playback speed benefit with minimal cost to other priorities. However, if they pushed it to 32fps, every frame would be repeated and the benefit would diminish or begin to disappear. 64fps might mean that each frame would be repeated 4 times. You can imagine that with this balanced scheme, the benefit works to a certain level and then diminishes. At some point of increase, rather than continuing to appear even more smooth and real, the film would begin to appear like a fast slide show that got slower with each increase in frame rate. That's essencially the kind of thing Ace does to balance it's original priorities with faster delivery. At a point in the speed continuum, it begins repeating snapshots, and beyond that the faster the speed the more snapshots it repeats. Thus the scientist's theory why Hi-Ace's speed offers nice benefit to a point, but at it's fastest speeds most users begin to prefer slower rates. So, the faster Freedom allows Ace to make use of faster stimulation, but priorities had to be balanced, and a good compromise was chosen. I don't know exactly what the balance was, nor whether a future upgrade to Ace can eliminate them, but if so, I am sure Cochlear will provide it. They always take good care of their customers at least as much as their comptitors. Mabye the chips still aren't fast enough to do both ADRO and faster speeds without replication, so they chose to offer ADRO and a modified speed enhancement. (I'm just guessing on the example, so please, don't argue it anyone - it's just for example to show that compromise can be a very good choice between two or more desired features) And no doubt there are compromises made with CIS+ and HiRes 120 given the hardware platforms. One example I know of was that the Auria could not run C1.2 implants. It was a compromise that was made to optimize battery efficiency for HiRes at the time, but Harmony will after FDA approval. Harmony utilizes newer better power management than Auria. Everyone makes compromises b/c they're dealing with hardware limitations related to what kind of computer can be made to sit on the ear. The overall point being that speed (capture, processing, and stimulation speeds) are not irrelevant, but they are always balanced with other priorities. None-the-less, generally the faster the computer cycles, the faster it samples real life data, the faster it can enhance and process it, and the faster it can deliver it (barring compromise), the more accurate to reality it will be for the user. Some kinds of sound will benefit more from enhanced accuracy than others. Music more than speech. Speech in noise more than speech in quiet. Tonal languages (mandarin etc.) more than non-tonal languages (english, german, etc.) Bilateral probably more than unilateral, since the brain uses subtle timing differences between ears to make sense of competing sounds. BUT, no product is so fast today that this has been perfected. The clock cycles of the processors still limit how accurately such timing information can be delivered, and the software has to balance priorities, although it's getting better. Maybe in 5yrs we'll be running Core 2 Duo's inside the ear. Who knows. So, in your case, with a 3G and a Freedom, it's not that you would hear a delay (even if you could detect it) it's just that you are probably getting more frames/second with the Freedom, so it sounds better to you, but increasing the playback fps too far begins to be less beneficial b/c of a trade-off in how it's implemented. And there are a host of other improvements that make it sound better too, but they all contribute, including the faster computer speed. I hope that makes more sense. Sincerely, Steve > > >>Both the Freedom bte and implant increase speed, because it is > helpful for retaining the subtle timing cues available in the sound > environment.<< > > Steve, > > Could you explain what you mean by this statement? In comparing my 3G and > Freedom BTEs, I don't experience any delay in sound. What I hear is > instantaneous. Is this what you are referring to when you talk about " subtle > timing cues? " > > > > Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE > Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05 > > Right ear - Nucleus Freedom > Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06 > > Deafblind/Postlingual > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Steve, You did a heck of a job in enlightening us. I just want to comment on this one item below, which makes your point. Three years ago before anyone ever heard that the 120 channel program was in the works, AB was testing a prototype. At that time the device was twice the size of the present Harmony. It was impractical due to its size, and the challenge was to make it smaller. Who knows, maybe the Freedom presented a similar challenge? Thankfully, the problem was worked out, and we all benefit. Ralph CII 8/01 HiRes 2/03 > Remember how big the first Compaq 286 > suitcase 'portable' PCs were??? Would you want to wear that > around?? How about 2 of them for bilateral CIs?? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Ralph, " Who knows, maybe the Freedom presented a similar challenge? " All technology is a work in progress. That is the only way it works. Take the media that we used to record music on. 45s then LP. Then tape, open reel, cassette, 8 track. And now cd's. The above is how music was marketed to us over the years. Now with flash memory, we will see the cd go the way of the 45s and LPs and see much more downloading of music. Who knows what will come along in the next year or 3. Same thing wiht the CI. Who would have known where we are today, just a bare 10 years ago? And better yet, who knows where we will be in not 10, but 5 years? Stick around and find out. *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was 'shut up.' -- Joe Namath & Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie) Newport, Oregon N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup rclark0276@... http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Hi Mike. Computers to CI comparisons are really apples to aardvarks. A computer is a machine, it is not connected to your brain, or your nerves. It can go as fast as it wants. Nerves anywhere in the body receive an impluse, discharge, recover, get stimulated again. There is a time that ALL NERVES need to recover after discharging. So, if you are stimulating at a rate that is faster than the nerve is designed to function, it's not going to function. It needs the resting time between stimulus. Check out anatomy. Comparing machines to machines is fine, but if a machine is connected to a body, then you have to take the physical restrictions of the body into consideration. And, as I asked previously, have any studies been done showing that faster is better? Any increase in comprehension with faster rates of stimulation. There have been a lot of anecdotal postings about how people " like " the faster rates, " feel they hear better " or " understand better " with them. But have any studies been done showing actual clinical proof that faster is better overall? I was at a restaurant with my implant surgeon, audiologist and surgical nurse one time. Very noisy lunch time crowd. Waiter told us the specials that were not on the menu. I ordered one of them. The Dr. wanted to know where I saw that. Told him the waiter told us. And I was the ONLY one at the table who heard and understood what the waiter had said. This was 5 years ago! Dr. was impressed, so were the audiologist and nurse. Because they all have typical hearing! Bet you're glad you can turn the processor off with a crying baby around. Thanks, Posted by: " maroyer03 " hearmike@... maroyer03 Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:08 pm (PST) comparing CI processing speeds to a car's vehicle speed is comparing apples to oranges. lets compare apples to apples (CI's vs. computers) -- if a faster processor speed was not important to anything, then computers would not come out with incresed processing speeds every 6 months. a fast processing speed in a computer is critical to handle all the multi-tasking computers do..the same is true for CI users. we need the fastest processing speed to enable us to keep up with soudns. This is why, when I was in the harmony trials - i wasn't just hearing my daughter cry on the baby monitor - i was hearing the TYPE of cry (hungry, scared, etc..). And while on a date with my wife, we were conversing normally in an extremely busy Washington DC resturant..yes, above the other enviornmental noises. Cheers, Royer Advanced Bionics CI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Hi Steve, As a child I had a very small amount of residual vision which allowed me to see Christmas lights. Believe it or not, I understood your analogy and it made perfect sense. <smile> What a very impressive (and comprehensive) explanation! Thanks so much for taking the time to explain! Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE Implanted: 12/22/04 Activated: 1/18/05 Right ear - Nucleus Freedom Implanted: 2/1/06 Activated: 3/1/06 Deafblind/Postlingual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 , " ...then you have to take the physical restrictions of the body into consideration. " Exactly. If faster is better then why are we not watching video at a x20 faster rate? Or listening to recorded audio at a faster rate? Because the brain is not going to be able to decipher it. *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your pocket and then giving Fido only two of them. -- Phil Pastoret & Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie) Newport, Oregon N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup rclark0276@... http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Hi Alice, I originally signed up for web-based mail only. I don't know what happened, but in the meantime, I can't log on or off (and believe me, I've tried a gazillion ways WITH and without help from ), so I'm requesting a manual removal for me. I've also tried emailing you directly and that email has been returned as undeliverable. Please help as I can't handle the individual emails, and don't like digests either, so since I wasn't/couldn't be web only, I'd rather be removed completely. Thanks much, Sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Well, the world is moving to HiDef video, and it certainly requires faster equipment because it involves more information capture. And CD music had to be incredibly fast at sampling for record and reading for playback to even come close to the real-time speed of analog records. With CIs the reality is that current 16-bit processors are far from being as fast as the continuous sound a normal cochlea is exposed to. With regard to find timing of sound information, the reason it has not been made useful to CI users so far, especially in the bilateral condition, is because the processors simply aren't fast enough to represent it accurately. Their (relatively) slow clock cycles distort very subtle timing delays by either eliminating them or expanding them by an entire cycle such that the brain cannot make good use of them. The problem is that the CI is just not fast enough for the brain, not the other way around. This is true of all current devices, and though they are improving, we're still a long way from real-time. Steve > > , > " ...then you have to take the physical restrictions of the body into > consideration. " > > Exactly. If faster is better then why are we not watching video at a > x20 faster rate? Or listening to recorded audio at a faster rate? Because > the brain is not going to be able to decipher it. > > *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* > If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your pocket > and then giving Fido only two of them. > -- Phil Pastoret > & Dreamer Doll (Guide Dawggie) > Newport, Oregon > N24C 3G 8/2000 Hookup > rclark0276@... > http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Good point about nerve recovery . You've done your homework. Did you also know that a normal cochlea has constant nerve activity going on which is not present in the CI nerve. It is believed that this activity is the physiology's way of preparing the nerve to fire again as fast as possible. As such, our surgeon is working on a mapping strategy that simulates this activity in the nerve, and as you might guess, the faster the processor is, the more efficiently it is able to do that. If you saw the Christmas concert videos of my daughter Addy, you were watching her engaged in a musical performance using this new strategy in both of her CIs. She's in a trial testing it out, and I can honestly say that before this year she's never been able to be in synch with the music as much as she was in that concert. She has yet to upgrade processors because the trial stuff isn't setup to run on them yet, so we can't compare it to the newer 'commercial' strategies, but for her the bar has raised quite far for anything new to beat. Anyway, the more the processor does, the faster it needs to be, and for severaly types of benefit, the faster it needs to deliver stimulation. That's why every company keeps making them faster. Excellent point though. I'm impressed. Not everyone understands the fire-recover-fire nature of nerve endings. Sincerely, Steve > > Hi Mike. > Computers to CI comparisons are really apples to aardvarks. A > computer is a machine, it is not connected to your brain, or your nerves. > It can go as fast as it wants. > Nerves anywhere in the body receive an impluse, discharge, recover, > get stimulated again. There is a time that ALL NERVES need to recover > after discharging. So, if you are stimulating at a rate that is faster > than the nerve is designed to function, it's not going to function. It > needs the resting time between stimulus. Check out anatomy. > Comparing machines to machines is fine, but if a machine is connected > to a body, then you have to take the physical restrictions of the body > into consideration. > And, as I asked previously, have any studies been done showing that > faster is better? Any increase in comprehension with faster rates of > stimulation. > There have been a lot of anecdotal postings about how people " like " > the faster rates, " feel they hear better " or " understand better " with > them. But have any studies been done showing actual clinical proof that > faster is better overall? > I was at a restaurant with my implant surgeon, audiologist and > surgical nurse one time. Very noisy lunch time crowd. Waiter told us > the specials that were not on the menu. I ordered one of them. The Dr. > wanted to know where I saw that. Told him the waiter told us. And I was > the ONLY one at the table who heard and understood what the waiter had > said. This was 5 years ago! Dr. was impressed, so were the audiologist > and nurse. Because they all have typical hearing! > Bet you're glad you can turn the processor off with a crying baby > around. > Thanks, > > > Posted by: " maroyer03 " hearmike@... maroyer03 > Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:08 pm (PST) > comparing CI processing speeds to a car's vehicle speed is comparing > apples to oranges. lets compare apples to apples (CI's vs. computers) > -- if a faster processor speed was not important to anything, then > computers would not come out with incresed processing speeds every 6 > months. a fast processing speed in a computer is critical to handle > all the multi-tasking computers do..the same is true for CI users. we > need the fastest processing speed to enable us to keep up with soudns. > This is why, when I was in the harmony trials - i wasn't just hearing > my daughter cry on the baby monitor - i was hearing the TYPE of cry > (hungry, scared, etc..). And while on a date with my wife, we were > conversing normally in an extremely busy Washington DC resturant..yes, > above the other enviornmental noises. > > Cheers, > > Royer > Advanced Bionics CI > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.