[Radium]

Hi:

What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a
congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some
hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals
exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner
in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once --
hear] does? This would be a bionic substitute for the auditory cortex
that could be connected to the brain of a person who has never heard
anything from the time he/she was conceived. The brain is "tricked"
into perceiving the electronic signals as sound. The brain 'thinks'
that it is receiving signals from an actual auditory cortex but in fact
is receiving those messages from an electronic device.

Does anyone think that such technology will be available [or at least
developing] for congenitally-deaf patients in the next 20-50 years?

NOTE: Cochlear implants are peripheral rather than central. I am
talking about direct stimulation of the brain. The theoretical device I
am speaking of can cause auditory perception in a congenitally-deaf
individual in the same way auditory perception occurs in dreams [of
those who are not congenitelly-deaf] as well as auditory
hallucinations. This device would produce audio perceptions much in a
similar way that auditory-hallucinations occur -- i.e. within the brain
itself -- and could do so even in a congenitally-deaf individual who --
due to some birth-defect, perhaps -- has never had any peripheral
auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who
have peripherial auditory nerves].


Thanks,

Radium

[Xtrchessreal]

Radium wrote:
Hi:

What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a
congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some
hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals
exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner
in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once --
hear] does? This would be a bionic substitute for the auditory cortex
that could be connected to the brain of a person who has never heard
anything from the time he/she was conceived. The brain is "tricked"
into perceiving the electronic signals as sound. The brain 'thinks'
that it is receiving signals from an actual auditory cortex but in fact
is receiving those messages from an electronic device.

Does anyone think that such technology will be available [or at least
developing] for congenitally-deaf patients in the next 20-50 years?

NOTE: Cochlear implants are peripheral rather than central. I am
talking about direct stimulation of the brain. The theoretical device I
am speaking of can cause auditory perception in a congenitally-deaf
individual in the same way auditory perception occurs in dreams [of
those who are not congenitelly-deaf] as well as auditory
hallucinations. This device would produce audio perceptions much in a
similar way that auditory-hallucinations occur -- i.e. within the brain
itself -- and could do so even in a congenitally-deaf individual who --
due to some birth-defect, perhaps -- has never had any peripheral
auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who
have peripherial auditory nerves].


Thanks,

Radium

I would venture to say that you could get the technology to work and
the perhaps some nerve stimulations but the key thing to realize is
that the previously deaf person would hear noise and unable to discern
one sound from another. It would be like those of us that hear
normally trying to understand what a dog is communicating when it is
barking.

"Bark ruffshtifff zoingkk blat"

The technology would need to be interfaced on babies for it to work.
Especially within the first six months of life since that is the point
at which the most neurons are available for path connections etc.

On an adult it would probably make them go insane from the noise. I
imagine it to be like hooking up headphones to a white noise generator
along with some percusive sounds, extremely rattling. If you have ever
had the experience of a noise so loud it made your eyes go crossed -
totally un-interpretable.

Thats my opinion.

[Laurence Payne]

I wouldn't be too pessimistic about the adult brain's ability to learn
and adapt.

[Chef Juke]

On 19 Dec 2006 01:02:04 -0800, "Xtrchessreal"
wrote:




I would venture to say that you could get the technology to work and
the perhaps some nerve stimulations but the key thing to realize is
that the previously deaf person would hear noise and unable to discern
one sound from another. It would be like those of us that hear
normally trying to understand what a dog is communicating when it is
barking.

"Bark ruffshtifff zoingkk blat"

The technology would need to be interfaced on babies for it to work.
Especially within the first six months of life since that is the point
at which the most neurons are available for path connections etc.

On an adult it would probably make them go insane from the noise. I
imagine it to be like hooking up headphones to a white noise generator
along with some percusive sounds, extremely rattling. If you have ever
had the experience of a noise so loud it made your eyes go crossed -
totally un-interpretable.

Thats my opinion.

A few years ago I had a bout of Bell's Palsy. This affected the
facial nerve on the left side of my face (made me look as if I had had
a stroke) and it also affected the muscle that stretches the ear drum.
This resulted in hyperacusis, a symptom where the ear hears sounds as
louder than they are, in this case because the muscle in my left ear
that would normally stretch the eardrum reflexivly to loud noises was
paralyzed (temporarily).

The real-worl result was, about a week after I first came down with
Bell's Palsy, I went to a Lyle Lovett concert. My wife had gotten us
front row seats. I had not noticed any symptoms related to my ear
until the point when the Band struck up and started playing. It was
like listening to a stereo with a blown left speaker with the sound
turned up all the way. To my affected left ear, the sound of the band
was about 3 times louder than the right and it was distorted like a
blown speaker. Hurt like a sonovagun too. I slapped my hand over my
ear and eventually figured that if I stuffed the right amount of
tissue in my ear, I could dampen the sound enough to equalize between
the left and right ears.

I later found out that the muscle in your ear works kind of
like...well kind of like a tv censor....when it hears something coming
in that seems to loud, it automatically adjusts the ear so that the
sound is muted....like a limiter of sorts. I imagine that this is the
one of the major obstacles any technology trying to bring hearing to
the deaf would have to work hard to overcome. How to effectively
autobalance the sound coming in, in a way that matches how the body
normally does it.




-Chef Juke
"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
www.chefjuke.com

[Ken]

I was initially sceptical about this thread but it has certainly proved
interesting, giving us a glimpse of the synaptic activity which
underlies all human mental and physical activity, the way the ears may
judge direction by phase analysis and how much of the analysis of
received data may take place at muscular-level rather than in the brain
itself. I suppose one question is how you define the brain. One
definition would encompass all systems linked to it. I have had the
impression that the retina is indistinguishable from the brain and I
suppose many of us have a similar feeling about the cochlea.

As the group is no doubt tired of hearing, I was recently fitted with a
CI and the perception, when I turn the processor on, is that
information is being conveyed directly to my brain (OK - in part this
is because the transfer of data across my skin actually takes place
immediately above my ear) whereas, with a normal hearing aid, it is
being fed to my ear.

Another example of distributed processing is the quite incredible
ability of our hands to identify incredibly small differences in the
weight of objects (I am talking grams). This must involve some sort of
muscular memory and ability to compare. And all those instinctive
movements we make doing everyday things which seem to happen with
little or now involvement of the brain - I have often felt that the
essence of sporting skills - skiing or playing tennis - lie in the
ability of the limbs to learn to do various complicated things without
conscious thought - automatically.

Fascinating stuff!

[Radiosrfun]

"Ken" wrote in message
ups.com...

I was initially sceptical about this thread but it has certainly proved
interesting, giving us a glimpse of the synaptic activity which
underlies all human mental and physical activity, the way the ears may
judge direction by phase analysis and how much of the analysis of
received data may take place at muscular-level rather than in the brain
itself. I suppose one question is how you define the brain. One
definition would encompass all systems linked to it. I have had the
impression that the retina is indistinguishable from the brain and I
suppose many of us have a similar feeling about the cochlea.

As the group is no doubt tired of hearing, I was recently fitted with a
CI and the perception, when I turn the processor on, is that
information is being conveyed directly to my brain (OK - in part this
is because the transfer of data across my skin actually takes place
immediately above my ear) whereas, with a normal hearing aid, it is
being fed to my ear.

Another example of distributed processing is the quite incredible
ability of our hands to identify incredibly small differences in the
weight of objects (I am talking grams). This must involve some sort of
muscular memory and ability to compare. And all those instinctive
movements we make doing everyday things which seem to happen with
little or now involvement of the brain - I have often felt that the
essence of sporting skills - skiing or playing tennis - lie in the
ability of the limbs to learn to do various complicated things without
conscious thought - automatically.

Fascinating stuff!


I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months back -
there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now about 15 or
so - who apparently was deaf from birth. The article related "surgery helps
girl deaf from birth - hear for the first time". So - whatever they did -
apparently did work - at least to some degree. Does she hear like those of
us granted hearing at birth? Who knows! Just thought I would share that with
you - given the header topic. IF you wish, you could look up the article
itself in the news papers archives. The newspaper is called "The Valley
Independent" - and is printed in Westmoreland County - PA. That news paper
is also affiliated with the "Tribune Review" which you may also see headers
for in any web search related. Whether they ran the story in both - I
couldn't say.

Lou

[jakdedert]

Radiosrfun wrote:

I'm not sure if this is what you wish to read - but - a few months back -
there was an article in our local paper of a young girl - now about 15 or
so - who apparently was deaf from birth. The article related "surgery helps
girl deaf from birth - hear for the first time". So - whatever they did -
apparently did work - at least to some degree. Does she hear like those of
us granted hearing at birth? Who knows! Just thought I would share that with
you - given the header topic. IF you wish, you could look up the article
itself in the news papers archives. The newspaper is called "The Valley
Independent" - and is printed in Westmoreland County - PA. That news paper
is also affiliated with the "Tribune Review" which you may also see headers
for in any web search related. Whether they ran the story in both - I
couldn't say.

I wonder if any two of us hear things--in our heads--the same. Maybe
what I perceive as loud, you perceive the same way I would bright or
hot. Is there really any way to tell?

My feeling is that the experience is similar; but I don't know that
there will ever be any way to really tell. Perhaps by observing the
areas of the brain that are stimulated by various sensory input....?

jak

Lou

[artis]

3.78 to 1

Artis


"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi:

What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a
congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some
hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals
exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner
in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once --
hear] does? This would be a bionic substitute for the auditory cortex
that could be connected to the brain of a person who has never heard
anything from the time he/she was conceived. The brain is "tricked"
into perceiving the electronic signals as sound. The brain 'thinks'
that it is receiving signals from an actual auditory cortex but in fact
is receiving those messages from an electronic device.

Does anyone think that such technology will be available [or at least
developing] for congenitally-deaf patients in the next 20-50 years?

NOTE: Cochlear implants are peripheral rather than central. I am
talking about direct stimulation of the brain. The theoretical device I
am speaking of can cause auditory perception in a congenitally-deaf
individual in the same way auditory perception occurs in dreams [of
those who are not congenitelly-deaf] as well as auditory
hallucinations. This device would produce audio perceptions much in a
similar way that auditory-hallucinations occur -- i.e. within the brain
itself -- and could do so even in a congenitally-deaf individual who --
due to some birth-defect, perhaps -- has never had any peripheral
auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who
have peripherial auditory nerves].


Thanks,

Radium

[Bob Masta]

On 18 Dec 2006 22:26:38 -0800, "Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a
congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some
hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals
exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner
in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once --
hear] does? This would be a bionic substitute for the auditory cortex
that could be connected to the brain of a person who has never heard
anything from the time he/she was conceived. The brain is "tricked"
into perceiving the electronic signals as sound. The brain 'thinks'
that it is receiving signals from an actual auditory cortex but in fact
is receiving those messages from an electronic device.

Does anyone think that such technology will be available [or at least
developing] for congenitally-deaf patients in the next 20-50 years?

NOTE: Cochlear implants are peripheral rather than central. I am
talking about direct stimulation of the brain. The theoretical device I
am speaking of can cause auditory perception in a congenitally-deaf
individual in the same way auditory perception occurs in dreams [of
those who are not congenitelly-deaf] as well as auditory
hallucinations. This device would produce audio perceptions much in a
similar way that auditory-hallucinations occur -- i.e. within the brain
itself -- and could do so even in a congenitally-deaf individual who --
due to some birth-defect, perhaps -- has never had any peripheral
auditory nerves [remember, cochlear implants only work in subjects who
have peripherial auditory nerves].


The technology you are talking about is currently under active
research and development. However, as far as I know nobody is
attempting to stimulate the auditory cortex (as can be done with
visual cortex). Instead, they are looking into some of the
"way-stations" that the signals from the periphery pass through
on their way up to the cortex. The issues are many, but one
is that they need to find a "mapping",

The cochlea is a parallel system, with separate channels
(neurons) for each frequency. The cochlear implant can take
advantage of the fact that high-frequency neurons come
from the base of the cochlea (nearest the outside world) and
low-frequency neurons come from the apex. So there is a regular
mapping between location and frequency. The cochlear prosthesis is
just a linear array of electrodes, and they basically just thread it
up into the cochlea. Wherever it stops, the electrode contacts will
be near neurons of some particular frequency. It's not going to be
identical from patient to patient, but it's more or less
predictable that more-distant electrodes stimulate lower
frequencies.

But after the nerve bundle connects to the cochlear nucleus
("nucleus" in brain-talk means "bunch of neurons and stuff"),,
the mapping is not so neat. The contact electrodes will probably
need to be a 2-D surface array, which will have to contact an
ill-defined glob of cells...difficult, compared to the simplicity of a
linear cochlea.

But it gets worse. The signals are getting partially decoded as they
work their way up to the cortex. so it's not as simple as one contact
for one input frequency. There are neurons that respond to different
"features" of the sound frequencies, such as onset and offset or
sweeps. So even assuming that a predictable placement can be
worked out somehow (or mapped after placement, more likely),
the encoding of the stimulating signals for each electrode is going
to be much more involved.

And as you go higher up toward the cortex, the encoding problem
gets worse. I suspect that at the top, things will be so heavily
processed and combined with other inputs that the best strategy,
would be to just place the electrodes and then have some sort of
scheme where electrodes are stimulated in random patterns and
the subject reports what is heard. Or, as another post implies,
you just plug in some arbitrary stimulus mapping and let the
subject learn what it means ("neural plasticity")... eventually.

Best regards,


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

[ian.vitro]

Well, I'm with the above post. It's highly unlikely that stimulating
cortex would be the most efficient and/or useful way to solve this
problem because of brainstem processing. The complicated way that
afferent neurons from cochlea hook up to olivary nucleus gives us the
ability to sense the direction of a source of a wave that travels at
some 330 m/s. After this, things split again. It is a common mistake in
neuro to believe that all processing goes on in cortex - the energy
costs of synapses are so high that I guarantee there is computation, a
"reason" for being if you will, anywhere they exist.

Auditory hallucinations are a little more complicated than just
activity within the primary auditory cortex, as well - there are
affective components (limbic system), they probably come from memory
(requiring hippocampal activation), as well as having the auditory
component. Lastly, thanks to plastic properties of cerebral cortex,
congenitally deaf adults probably don't have "auditory cortex." Since
afferent nerves from auditory system haven't stimulated any activity,
it is likely that this part of cortex would be "taken over" by adjacent
areas, like is seen in stroke recovery; or in Hubel & Weisel's
experiments with cat visual cortex.

Cheers,

Ian Vitro

[moneysmith]

I forwarded the original question to Michael Seidman, an ENT at Henry
Ford Health Systems, and here is his reply:

Dear Radium, My answer is too lengthy to really discuss in an email,
but I will try to touch on the highlights.

There is already extensive research being conducted at hair cell
regeneration in the inner ear. I have a lengthy scientific talk on this
which will be available on my website within the next several weeks.

We are already implanting electrodes into the auditory cortex (a study
I have developed), you can see this on www.bodylanguagevitamin.com --
look in the educational resources section (this is a commercial
website) and scroll way down and one of the first powerpoint
presentations which has some of this work on the site.

Two of my patients are experiencing auditory hallucinations when the
power is turned up. Part of the problem is that people who have NEVER
learned speech and acquired language will have an EXCEPTIONALLY
difficult time gaining hearing through stimulation at the cochlea or
the brain. We know that if you cover someone's eyes from birth for the
first 1-2 years of life they will be blind forever, as the neural
tracts are not laid down. Some have said that this may be true for
hearing as well. I could discuss this for hours and write pages and
pages, but I will have to stop here.

Michael D. Seidman, MD., FACS
Henry Ford Health System
Director of Otologic/Neurotologic Surgery
Medical-Director Tinnitus Center
Medical Director of the Complementary/Integrative Medicine Center
Associate Clinical Professor Wayne State University-Dept of Oto HNS
6777 W. Maple Rd
W. Bloomfield, Michigan 48323 USA


ian.vitro wrote:
Well, I'm with the above post. It's highly unlikely that stimulating
cortex would be the most efficient and/or useful way to solve this
problem because of brainstem processing. The complicated way that
afferent neurons from cochlea hook up to olivary nucleus gives us the
ability to sense the direction of a source of a wave that travels at
some 330 m/s. After this, things split again. It is a common mistake in
neuro to believe that all processing goes on in cortex - the energy
costs of synapses are so high that I guarantee there is computation, a
"reason" for being if you will, anywhere they exist.

Auditory hallucinations are a little more complicated than just
activity within the primary auditory cortex, as well - there are
affective components (limbic system), they probably come from memory
(requiring hippocampal activation), as well as having the auditory
component. Lastly, thanks to plastic properties of cerebral cortex,
congenitally deaf adults probably don't have "auditory cortex." Since
afferent nerves from auditory system haven't stimulated any activity,
it is likely that this part of cortex would be "taken over" by adjacent
areas, like is seen in stroke recovery; or in Hubel & Weisel's
experiments with cat visual cortex.

Cheers,

Ian Vitro

[Radium]

Big thanks to all those who took the time and energy to answer my
question.

[Charles Schuler]

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi:

What are the chances that, in the next 20-50 years, that a
congenitally-deaf individual will have a chance to hear sounds via some
hi-tech electronic stimulation of the brain with electrical signals
exciting and relaxing certains parts of the brain in a similar manner
in which the auditory-cortex [of individual who can -- or could once --
hear] does?

Given your time frame, the odds are better than even. But, it might involve
some brain adaptation (learning).

[Ken]

The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without
hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect
that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be
around 0.001% - negligible.

I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a
microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on
a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat
purrs) and it comes through loud and clear.

So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given
expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear.

Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.

[Bob Masta]

On 24 Dec 2006 20:14:40 -0800, "Ken" wrote:

The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without
hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect
that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be
around 0.001% - negligible.

I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a
microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on
a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat
purrs) and it comes through loud and clear.

So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given
expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear.

Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.


Sorry to say, it's not quite that simple. Yes, most of the recipients
can "hear", but it's not very close to normal hearing. Very few, for
example, can enjoy music. The reason is pretty clear when you
understand that the normal cochlea can resolve several thousand
different frequencies... because it has separate neurons for each one.
The coclear implants typically have 22 electrodes, so in some ideal
sense you might hope they could resolve 22 different frequency bands.
Alas, it's nowhere near this good. The first issue is that many of
those electrodes never even make it into the proper part of the
cochlea, since the surgeon can't get it in all the way for whatever
reason. Then, the patient may not have all the original nerves
intact, so there is nothing to receive the stimulus in some regions.
Finally, there is the (BIG) problem of current spread. The electrodes
are not sitting right on the nerves they are attempting to
stimulate... the current must travel a certain distance.
Unfortunately, it is travelling through (essentially) sal****er,
so the current spreads to surrounding nerves, not just the one
that is closest. Besides limiting the selectivity, the current
spread also affects how many channels you can activate at
once. There are very sophisticated stimulation schemes that
try to address these issues, but the last I heard a typical
result for overall frequency resolution is about 8 channels.

I have heard simulations of various numbers of channels,
and believe me, 8 is pretty lame compared to normal
hearing. However, it is enough that with training many
patients can learn to use a telephone. That's the "gold
standard" in CI circles (since the patient doesn't have
any lipreading cues), but even there the whole trick
works because normal speech is very redundant and
full of contextual cues.

So, we still have a *looonng* way to go before we can
come anywhere close to restoring "hearing" in the sense
that most of us think of it.

Best regards,




Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:11:21 GMT, (Bob Masta)
wrote:

On 24 Dec 2006 20:14:40 -0800, "Ken" wrote:

The short answer is 100%.
snip
Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.


Sorry to say, it's not quite that simple. Yes, most of the recipients
can "hear", but it's not very close to normal hearing. Very few, for
example, can enjoy music.

Yes buy that was not what he was saying. They will have functional
hearing sufficient for communication and survival. Music and other
subtleties involve many, many issues.

Kal

[Ken]

I understand Cochlear is developing a 48-electrode array - difficult
for the reasons you mention. And still a long way from thousands.
Incidentally, in my case, as a recent implantee, all electrodes
worked.

I have yet to tackle music - except what I pick up listening to
radio/DVDs/TV. And I have one ear which, with a hearing aid, can hear
up to 1000hz and, within that limitation, can enjoy music (No violins
but most vocal not bad and, oddly, clarinets come through)
In response to Kalman and others,

From reports from other implantees, experience with music varies widely
(I find myself wondering whether those who do well were, in their
hearing years, tone deaf - plenty of tone-deaf people love/ enjoy music
and the deficiencies of CI mentioned above would not affect them - my
wife is tone-deaf and, as a child, had a hopeless ambition to be in the
choir - naturally she always, eventually, got turfed out!).

The other thing is the ability of the brain to adapt - learn. I intend
to work with a keyboard to see if it is possible to follow the
chromatic scale - we will see.

And the other string to my bow is continuing development of CI
software. The big thing, for people interested in music, is that
Cochlear must be keen to sell CI technology to populous increasingly
affluent Asian countries whose languages are tonal. For CI to work well
in these countries its ability to convey music is, coincidentally,
improved.

Harking back to the original post, the question was whether people born
deaf could be enabled to hear. The answer is, as I said, yes. Not hear
well, but, like Dr. Johnson's bi-pedal dog, be able to do it at all.

As has often been mentioned (yet is widely overlooked) environmental
noises are important - sometimes vital - for our survival in a
dangerous world

[artis]

"Ken" wrote in message
s.com...


I understand Cochlear is developing a 48-electrode array - difficult
for the reasons you mention. And still a long way from thousands.
Incidentally, in my case, as a recent implantee, all electrodes
worked.

I have yet to tackle music - except what I pick up listening to
radio/DVDs/TV. And I have one ear which, with a hearing aid, can hear
up to 1000hz and, within that limitation, can enjoy music (No violins
but most vocal not bad and, oddly, clarinets come through)
In response to Kalman and others,

From reports from other implantees, experience with music varies widely
(I find myself wondering whether those who do well were, in their
hearing years, tone deaf - plenty of tone-deaf people love/ enjoy music
and the deficiencies of CI mentioned above would not affect them - my
wife is tone-deaf and, as a child, had a hopeless ambition to be in the
choir - naturally she always, eventually, got turfed out!).

The other thing is the ability of the brain to adapt - learn. I intend
to work with a keyboard to see if it is possible to follow the
chromatic scale - we will see.
And the other string to my bow is continuing development of CI
software. The big thing, for people interested in music, is that
Cochlear must be keen to sell CI technology to populous increasingly
affluent Asian countries whose languages are tonal. For CI to work well
in these countries its ability to convey music is, coincidentally,
improved.



Rush Limbaugh says that with his cochlear implant he can listen to music he
knew before his auto-immune condition rendered him completely deaf, and hear
it, but music he did not learn when his hearing was normal, he cannot now
decipher or appreciate. A very interesting observation, as he is a former
disk jockey, who now makes talk radio his livelihood.

Artis

[Radium]

Ken wrote:
The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without
hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect
that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be
around 0.001% - negligible.

I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a
microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on
a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat
purrs) and it comes through loud and clear.

So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given
expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear.

Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.

Um. I was talking of a case where the congenitally-deaf patient was
born without any cochlear nerves. So no cochlear implant will help this
patient. Whats the solution now?

[Michael Ridenhour]

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ken wrote:
The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without
hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect
that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be
around 0.001% - negligible.

I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a
microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on
a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat
purrs) and it comes through loud and clear.

So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given
expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear.

Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.

Um. I was talking of a case where the congenitally-deaf patient was
born without any cochlear nerves. So no cochlear implant will help this
patient. Whats the solution now?


One word.
Plastics.

Michael

[Radium]

Michael Ridenhour wrote:
"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ken wrote:
The short answer is 100%. There are thousands of people born without
hearing who can now hear because of cochlear implants. I would expect
that the odds against an implant working on a random person would be
around 0.001% - negligible.

I can say, with some authority, that these people hear. A robin (or a
microwave or a car) chirps and they hear it! A piece of paper falls on
a table and they hear it. In fact a match falls on a table (or a cat
purrs) and it comes through loud and clear.

So in essence, anyone born without functioning hearing, given
expenditure of about $30k, can be given the ability to hear.

Expressed as above, maybe no big deal. But if they can hear an
approaching sparrow or a purring cat, they can also hear a car (or an
angry partner) which/who is about to hit them.

Um. I was talking of a case where the congenitally-deaf patient was
born without any cochlear nerves. So no cochlear implant will help this
patient. Whats the solution now?


One word.
Plastics.

Michael

I see. One solution is to prevent neuroplasticity from occuring. What
would be the disadvantages of such a solution?

[ian.vitro]

I am not sure it would be possible for someone born with no cochlear
nerve to ever hear, unless an implant far beyond what we have now were
implanted very early in life - say during the first three years or so.
There is tons of evidence showing that acquisition of phoneme
distinction, the building block of comprehension, is established very
early in life. Again, like Hubel and Weisel`s Nobel-winning work shows,
pieces of cortex that do not get used for their "normal" function are
taken over by adjacent areas for increases in function. Limbaugh`s
observation is interesting, and suggests the same thing - you can hear
music that you know, because it is still in memoy and brains are very
good at pattern completion; but new music ends up being beyond you -
presumably because you lack the resolution to make out all of the
different frequencies.

Blocking neuroplasticity would be the worst thing you could ever do.
You would eliminate learning of any kind. Eliminate the ability of
brains to recover after strokes or other infarcts. You would, in
essence, block the thing that makes brains so bloody useful. Even Rush
Limbaugh`s (well, it`s useful to him!).

Ian Vitro