Guest guest Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 Hi Misty, When I was implanted 12 years ago, the criteria was that you had NO amplifiable hearing in either ear. Based on that, I was profoundly deaf in both ears. Dr. implanted the one that had been deaf the longest (20 years), because if it didn't work, I would be no worse off than before. It took about 3 months for sounds to be the way I remembered them being. I'd worn hearing aids for a long time before being implanted, but never had any stimulation in the ear that was implanted. I talk on the phone, understand conversations without lipreading, and function much as a hearing person. Results vary, but mine turned out to be fantastic. I still do not have an implant in the other ear, so all my hearing comes through the implant, since the other ear is still too deaf to even use a hearing aid. Is there anyone out there who was profoundly deaf and then implanted who can tell me how it worked for them? Where you able to hear speech and understand it? How long did it take to have benefits? Thanks, Misty ____________________________________________________________ Make the right POS decision. Click here for POS systems that meet your business needs. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l5GmhUPqbMv9sJGEoWFbyux1xOfj0\ HKCGhjtD2hZpeFZm7p/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2008 Report Share Posted September 19, 2008 Hi , I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding speech without any visual clues ? Dan -- In , M Jansen <nucleus24@...> wrote: > > Hi Misty, > When I was implanted 12 years ago, the criteria was that you had NO > amplifiable hearing in either ear. Based on that, I was profoundly deaf > in both ears. Dr. implanted the one that had been deaf the longest (20 > years), because if it didn't work, I would be no worse off than before. > It took about 3 months for sounds to be the way I remembered them > being. I'd worn hearing aids for a long time before being implanted, but > never had any stimulation in the ear that was implanted. > I talk on the phone, understand conversations without lipreading, and > function much as a hearing person. > Results vary, but mine turned out to be fantastic. I still do not > have an implant in the other ear, so all my hearing comes through the > implant, since the other ear is still too deaf to even use a hearing aid. > > > > Is there anyone out there who was profoundly deaf and then implanted > who can tell me how it worked for them? Where you able to hear speech > and understand it? How long did it take to have benefits? Thanks, > Misty > ____________________________________________________________ > Make the right POS decision. Click here for POS systems that meet your business needs. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l5GmhUPqbMv9sJGEoWFbyux1xOfj0\ HKCGhjtD2hZpeFZm7p/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2008 Report Share Posted September 19, 2008 Dan, In the early days of CI, you could have no amplifiable hearing to get CI. The criteria has changed to 60% or worse in the better ear & 50% or worse in the worse ear. Re:profoundly deaf Hi , I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding speech without any visual clues ? Dan -- In , M Jansen <nucleus24@...> wrote: > > Hi Misty, > When I was implanted 12 years ago, the criteria was that you had NO > amplifiable hearing in either ear. Based on that, I was profoundly deaf > in both ears. Dr. implanted the one that had been deaf the longest (20 > years), because if it didn't work, I would be no worse off than before. > It took about 3 months for sounds to be the way I remembered them > being. I'd worn hearing aids for a long time before being implanted, but > never had any stimulation in the ear that was implanted. > I talk on the phone, understand conversations without lipreading, and > function much as a hearing person. > Results vary, but mine turned out to be fantastic. I still do not > have an implant in the other ear, so all my hearing comes through the > implant, since the other ear is still too deaf to even use a hearing aid. > > > > Is there anyone out there who was profoundly deaf and then implanted > who can tell me how it worked for them? Where you able to hear speech > and understand it? How long did it take to have benefits? Thanks, > Misty > ____________________________________________________________ > Make the right POS decision. Click here for POS systems that meet your business needs. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l5GmhUPqbMv9sJGEoWFbyux1xOfj0\ HKCGhjtD2hZpeFZm7p/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2008 Report Share Posted September 19, 2008 Dan, What is talking about is back in the old days, one had to have no " useful " hearing to qualify. One can have " enough " hearing to amplify it with a HA and still not gain any speech understanding. *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* I bought a dog the other day... I named him Stay. It's fun to call him... " Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay! " He went insane. Now he just ignores me and keeps typing. & Dreamer Doll ke7nwn Newport, Oregon N24C 8/2000 Hookup rclark0276@... http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ Re:profoundly deaf > Hi , > > I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. > > Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their > implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an > hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. > > However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had > either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the > implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding > speech without any visual clues ? > > Dan > > -- In , M Jansen <nucleus24@...> wrote: >> >> Hi Misty, >> When I was implanted 12 years ago, the criteria was that you had NO >> amplifiable hearing in either ear. Based on that, I was profoundly deaf >> in both ears. Dr. implanted the one that had been deaf the longest (20 >> years), because if it didn't work, I would be no worse off than before. >> It took about 3 months for sounds to be the way I remembered them >> being. I'd worn hearing aids for a long time before being > implanted, but >> never had any stimulation in the ear that was implanted. >> I talk on the phone, understand conversations without lipreading, and >> function much as a hearing person. >> Results vary, but mine turned out to be fantastic. I still do not >> have an implant in the other ear, so all my hearing comes through the >> implant, since the other ear is still too deaf to even use a hearing > aid. >> >> >> >> Is there anyone out there who was profoundly deaf and then implanted >> who can tell me how it worked for them? Where you able to hear speech >> and understand it? How long did it take to have benefits? Thanks, >> Misty >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Make the right POS decision. Click here for POS systems that meet > your business needs. >> > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l5GmhUPqbMv9sJGEoWFbyux1xOfj0\ HKCGhjtD2hZpeFZm7p/ >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Dan is speaking about HER OWN experience, 12 YEARS ago. She and some others here, were among the first to be implanted and as thus, were our pioneers. I think it would have taken infinitely more courage to get an implant back then. They didnt have the benefit of a group such as this, where people are kind enough to share THEIR OWN experiences, with others, to hopefully make the new persons journey less stressful and less scary and to give them hope for a better present and future. is an eloquent lady who expresses herself well, I'm quite sure she wrote about what SHE KNOWS. Just think, in 12 years, you will also have the benefit of 12 years experience and all the benefits of hindsight that go with it :-). Ted F. > > > > Hi Misty, > > When I was implanted 12 years ago, the criteria was that you had NO > > amplifiable hearing in either ear. Based on that, I was profoundly deaf > > in both ears. Dr. implanted the one that had been deaf the longest (20 > > years), because if it didn't work, I would be no worse off than before. > > It took about 3 months for sounds to be the way I remembered them > > being. I'd worn hearing aids for a long time before being > implanted, but > > never had any stimulation in the ear that was implanted. > > I talk on the phone, understand conversations without lipreading, and > > function much as a hearing person. > > Results vary, but mine turned out to be fantastic. I still do not > > have an implant in the other ear, so all my hearing comes through the > > implant, since the other ear is still too deaf to even use a hearing > aid. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Dan, my good man, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. 12 years ago when I was implanted a candidate could have NO amplifiable hearing in either ear. Which means a hearing aid wouldn't work AT ALL in EITHER EAR. Speech recognition was not even considered. If you could hear an airplane you had amplifiable hearing. I could hear nothing, nada, etc. The criteria has changed since then, in that one can now have up to 60% speech comprehension in the better ear, and 40% in the worse ear (may have changed from that as well). But 12 years ago during clinical trials for the Nucleus 24 straight array - which I have - you could not use a hearing aid in either ear and get an implant. You had to be deaf as a post. And I was. Hi , I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding speech without any visual clues ? Dan ____________________________________________________________ Save on Trade Schools - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLawOmNF6UphU3aDPmf5zWgJj2KjG\ cL2883ZKIDYvikHsR9/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Hi Ted & & all, Thanks for jumping in and repeating what I said in the first place. 12 years ago you had to have NO amplifiable hearing in order to get a cochlear implant. I like to think I express myself adequately, and that there is not too much room for misunderstanding, but who knows. There are other blondes out there besides myself. Thanks to all for clarifying what the criteria was WAY BACK when - 12 years ago - when I was a pioneer woman. Dan is speaking about HER OWN experience, 12 YEARS ago. She and some others here, were among the first to be implanted and as thus, were our pioneers. I think it would have taken infinitely more courage to get an implant back then. They didnt have the benefit of a group such as this, where people are kind enough to share THEIR OWN experiences, with others, to hopefully make the new persons journey less stressful and less scary and to give them hope for a better present and future. is an eloquent lady who expresses herself well, I'm quite sure she wrote about what SHE KNOWS. Just think, in 12 years, you will also have the benefit of 12 years experience and all the benefits of hindsight that go with it :-). Ted F. ____________________________________________________________ Get educated. Click here for Adult Education programs. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNbX4AMaWK6yIOk7jadkNmArU7nL7\ zUdAkLJC12nakBGwF9/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Not a problem . We all, well most all, understood you just fine because we know that the criteria has changed in recent years. You said what you meant and meant what you said. Right on. If there is still a doubting here, well, oh well. *---* *---* *---* *---* *---* Dogs need to sniff the ground; it's how they keep abreast of current events. The ground is a giant dog newspaper, containing all kinds of late-breaking dog news items, which, if they are especially urgent, are often continued in the next yard. -- Dave Barry & Dreamer Doll ke7nwn Newport, Oregon N24C 8/2000 Hookup rclark0276@... http://webpages.charter.net/dog_guide/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 I haven't posted in ages and just popped in to see what was going on and came across this subject and thought I just mention my circumstances. I lost my hearing suddently and was implanted just " 4 " years ago Oct. 2004, and was told one of the criterias was I had to be profoundly deaf, I even had to wear one of their hearing aids before the surgery just to prove that it did not help me, " which it didn't " I have come to realize when it comes to CI's things are changing all the time. I just read a post on my LDA (Late deafened adult) group where a member was implanted and was able to wash her hair the next day. (as long as she kept her incision dry) 4 years ago I was told to wait weeks. THis may also have something to do with the Dr. Just giving my 2cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Alright . Cause I do know a couple of CI users that were actually very good hearing aid wearers. They had good amplifiable hearing, good speech and all that. And had gotten their implant about 10 years ago. Perhaps, the criteria was starting to change a bit then. No problem. Dan > > Dan, my good man, > I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. 12 years ago when I was > implanted a candidate could have NO amplifiable hearing in either ear. > Which means a hearing aid wouldn't work AT ALL in EITHER EAR. Speech > recognition was not even considered. If you could hear an airplane you > had amplifiable hearing. I could hear nothing, nada, etc. > > The criteria has changed since then, in that one can now have up to > 60% speech comprehension in the better ear, and 40% in the worse ear (may > have changed from that as well). But 12 years ago during clinical trials > for the Nucleus 24 straight array - which I have - you could not use a > hearing aid in either ear and get an implant. You had to be deaf as a > post. And I was. > > > > Hi , > > I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. > > Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their > implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an > hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. > > However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had > either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the > implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding > speech without any visual clues ? > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > Save on Trade Schools - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLawOmNF6UphU3aDPmf 5zWgJj2KjGcL2883ZKIDYvikHsR9/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 , Another concern I had was that I felt that it wasn't the first time I've come across such posts, articles or sources that made it look like a cochlear implant would enable one to go from " hearing nothing at all " to " bingo ! that person has been cured and now hearings 'normally' " . Cause that's usually not the case. It's usually somewhat in between. But like you and the others pointed out, perhaps the criteria was different back then. No problem. Dan > > Dan, my good man, > I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. 12 years ago when I was > implanted a candidate could have NO amplifiable hearing in either ear. > Which means a hearing aid wouldn't work AT ALL in EITHER EAR. Speech > recognition was not even considered. If you could hear an airplane you > had amplifiable hearing. I could hear nothing, nada, etc. > > The criteria has changed since then, in that one can now have up to > 60% speech comprehension in the better ear, and 40% in the worse ear (may > have changed from that as well). But 12 years ago during clinical trials > for the Nucleus 24 straight array - which I have - you could not use a > hearing aid in either ear and get an implant. You had to be deaf as a > post. And I was. > > > > Hi , > > I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. > > Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their > implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an > hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. > > However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had > either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the > implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding > speech without any visual clues ? > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > Save on Trade Schools - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLawOmNF6UphU3aDPmf 5zWgJj2KjGcL2883ZKIDYvikHsR9/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Dan, Anyone who tells you a CI makes you hear like normal has a few screws missing. It certainly is way lots better than not hearing anything at all, but it does not compare to typical hearing that a person with no hearing loss has. But it's the best that is available for those who otherwise have no hearing at all. When they first started doing implants, they would do them on folks with no hearing because then you were no worse off if it didn't work. Then they started doing for folks who has some residual hearing in the ear that wouldn't be implanted. Then they started doing for folks who had some hearing in the ear that would be implanted, just not enough residual hearing to be of much value. Being able to hear an airplane flying overhed, or a fire engine, but nothing quieter than that isn't much use in understanding speech. They also used to implant people who had typical hearing most of their lives, and wouldn't dream of implanting someone who never heard, because they had no auditory memory. No matter how great their lipreading skills were, they had no memory of sound. That, too, has changed, and many pre lingually deafened adults are now getting implants. Their results differ drastically from people who had hearing at one time, lost it, but still have auditory memory of what sounds are like. , Another concern I had was that I felt that it wasn't the first time I've come across such posts, articles or sources that made it look like a cochlear implant would enable one to go from " hearing nothing at all " to " bingo ! that person has been cured and now hearings 'normally' " . Cause that's usually not the case. It's usually somewhat in between. But like you and the others pointed out, perhaps the criteria was different back then. No problem. Dan ____________________________________________________________ Want to be an interior designer? Click here to get info about top interior design schools. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLOoFQ4t6d2Czu7KzRwIU8P0GgfpC\ wpKafrvY76wQL8eeTR/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 - I think you may have the criteria a little mixed up, though close. The key term was " benefit " . One had to be at the point where hearing aids were of NO benefit. This was important because if one had some benefit, they needed to be sure that the probability of coming out of surgery with less speech comprehension than going into surgery was low. Twelve years ago I was profoundly deaf and decided against getting a CI. The changes in the standards of qualification for CI can be understood in terms of the humungous variance in speech comprehension scores back then. There was a high probability that a person who could comprehend 30% of monosyllabic words would post surgically comprehend less than before surgery. The mean scores stayed at between 38% and 43% for a long time. It is far more recent that the mean score increased while the standard deviation decreased. It is now improbable (not impossible) that a person will comprehend less after surgery than before. Twelve years ago they could not say that. Of course they still notify candidates that results are not predictable. The variance ini results was a major factor in my choosing to learn sign language in my waiting to get a CI. And by the way all the folks who tried to tell me 12 years ago that I wouldn't be able to benefit from a CI in the future because my auditory nerve being under- stimulated -- well those idiots were WRONG. With my first CI I get 100% in lab conditions. My second CI is still being remapped (again this thursday). I am not near as impressed with the second as with the first -- but I am sure the auditory nerve is just fine. With the first CI it is easy, including when listening to music, to forget I have CI. With the second CI, it reminds me in a very annoying way. Tinnitus still rages and I still find myself questioning why I was so stupid as to think 100% could be improved upon by getting a second CI. > > Dan, my good man, > I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. 12 years ago when I was > implanted a candidate could have NO amplifiable hearing in either ear. > Which means a hearing aid wouldn't work AT ALL in EITHER EAR. Speech > recognition was not even considered. If you could hear an airplane you > had amplifiable hearing. I could hear nothing, nada, etc. > > The criteria has changed since then, in that one can now have up to > 60% speech comprehension in the better ear, and 40% in the worse ear (may > have changed from that as well). But 12 years ago during clinical trials > for the Nucleus 24 straight array - which I have - you could not use a > hearing aid in either ear and get an implant. You had to be deaf as a > post. And I was. > > > > Hi , > > I'm not sure that " having no amplifiable hearing " is the right term here. > > Cause many CI users still had some " amplifiable hearing " in their > implanted ear prior to the implantation. And that many also wore an > hearing aid in the implanted ear before the CI. > > However, perhaps you meant that the criteria was that the user had > either very poor or hardly any or even zero speech recognition in the > implanted ear ? That is hardly or having difficulty understanding > speech without any visual clues ? > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > Save on Trade Schools - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLawOmNF6UphU3aDPmf 5zWgJj2KjGcL2883ZKIDYvikHsR9/ > > 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.