Will it ever be possible to give a congenitally-deaf individ

[artis]

Current numbers show that only
one out of seven who serve in the military ever see combat, but many die

from accidents and never saw a battlefield.--

Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Hey Terrell,
I have a brother in Central Florida who worked at Da Nang as an aircraft
mechanic. Is that considered seeing a battlefield by the narrow minds you
have to put up with? He had to go into a trench beside the planes during
attacks by the VC, but finally decided that if a bullet hit the fully loaded
jet he was lying beside, he'd be in little pieces anyway, so he kept
working. His girlfriend in town was killed by a mortar from the loving
freedom fighters of Ho Chi Minh, who targeted civilians because they didn't
shoot back. Like al Qaeda does today.

Artis

 

[ian.vitro]

Forgot another important point about the plasticity deal - no
plasticity would mean that there would be no way for the brains of the
patient to adapt to the cochlear nerve substitute and therefore "learn"
to perceive auditory stimuli. It would be self-defeating. I'm not sure
that there would be any way whatsoever to be able to give hearing to an
adult congenitally deaf individual. Keep in mind we're not talking
about restoring hearing to someone, we're talking about starting from
scratch and giving someone hearing for the first time, well after the
brain has passed the developmental stage where it "learns" to use the
sensory nerves that carry information into it. Simply not sure that
there's any way to manage it.

I don't care for many of Rush's opinions, but it sucks for anybody to
go suddenly deaf, no matter what the reason.

Ian Vitro

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

artis wrote:

Current numbers show that only
one out of seven who serve in the military ever see combat, but many die
from accidents and never saw a battlefield.--

Hey Terrell,
I have a brother in Central Florida who worked at Da Nang as an aircraft
mechanic. Is that considered seeing a battlefield by the narrow minds you
have to put up with? He had to go into a trench beside the planes during
attacks by the VC, but finally decided that if a bullet hit the fully loaded
jet he was lying beside, he'd be in little pieces anyway, so he kept
working. His girlfriend in town was killed by a mortar from the loving
freedom fighters of Ho Chi Minh, who targeted civilians because they didn't
shoot back. Like al Qaeda does today.

According to some of the idiots, if you didn't come home in a body
bag you weren't a Veteran, and you took your pay under false pretenses.
I'd like to round some of them up, give them one old pair of fatigues, a
worn out M16, and a one way pane ticket to Iraq. When they arrive, you
give them two loaded clips for the M16, and a weeks MREs and tell them
that they have to earn the trip home.

As far as your brother goes, he did have a dangerous job, but you
don't have to be near a battle to be too close to a JP4 fire. Some
moron ran a stop sign at the entrance of Cairn Airfield in 1973 and
slammed into a tanker full of jet aircraft fuel. It blew up, burn the
truck and the driver. The moron that cause the accident was in the base
hospital with a broken leg. I was five miles away, and felt the shock
wave. It burnt though the asphalt highway, and all that was left of the
truck was the back end of the tank, and part of one axle from the cab.

My MOS was broadcast engineer. The station I was to be sent to in
Vietnam was over run a few months later and the whole staff was killed.
It was miles from the nearest fighting. At the time, I was in Alaska at
the US Army cold weather test site working for AFRTS at one of the
coldest spots on earth. If you fell and couldn't get back on your feet,
you could easily freeze to death within 15 minutes. A number of
soldiers told me that they preferred the battlefield to their time at Ft
Greely.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, jay1000 <jfschonSpamgu...@cox.net> wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/msg/914ce5039cd5a23d
:

This is probably a normal phenomena, even for hearing people. I use a
pillow speaker to help with insomnia by playing music at a loudness
just above the threshhold of hearing. Old favorites are easily
recognizable while new music is just gibberish. I think that it is
something in the brain - not the ears.

Nice to see an interesting year-old thread re-opened. I would be nice to
design an electronic auditory system that is an electronic-equivalent of
the parts of the human brain involved in auditory perception. This
device needs to know exactly how the brain works in terms of auditory
perception. This equipment should be able to generate the intended audio
perception within the brain itself even in an individual who was
totally-deaf from the point of conception onwards due to a congenital
absence of peripheral auditory nerves. Such a device would
electronically generate sound perception -- within the brain itself --
in a similar manner in which auditory hallucinations and audio
perceptions in dreams occur.

 

[Saint Isadore Patron Sain]

On Sep 23, 8:58 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, jay1000 <jfschonSpamgu...@cox.net> wrotehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/msg/914ce5039...
:

This is probably a normal phenomena, even for hearing people. I use a
pillow speaker to help with insomnia by playing music at a loudness
just above the threshhold of hearing. Old favorites are easily
recognizable while new music is just gibberish. I think that it is
something in the brain - not the ears.

Nice to see an interesting year-old thread re-opened. I would be nice to
design an electronic auditory system that is an electronic-equivalent of
the parts of the human brain involved in auditory perception. This
device needs to know exactly how the brain works in terms of auditory
perception. This equipment should be able to generate the intended audio
perception within the brain itself even in an individual who was
totally-deaf from the point of conception onwards due to a congenital
absence of peripheral auditory nerves. Such a device would
electronically generate sound perception -- within the brain itself --
in a similar manner in which auditory hallucinations and audio
perceptions in dreams occur.

This was developed by a rather psychedelic fellow named Pat Flanagan
around 1970 called the Neurophone. You can get much info on it from
good old Google.

- Tom

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet wrote:

This was developed by a rather psychedelic fellow named Pat Flanagan
around 1970 called the Neurophone. You can get much info on it from
good old Google.

I have read about the neurophone which claims to produce auditory
perception through nerve stimulation. No offense but this is a whole
bunch of crap. No one with half a brain cell is going to believe such
garbage when science proves that it’s impossible using today technology.
Hell, a weight-loss ad selling rich chocolate is more credible than this
nonsense.

OTOH, science proves that temporal bone vibration can be used to cause
auditory pseudohallucinations.

Check out: http://www.priory.com/halluc.htm#pseudo

"Radio-reception. A 35 year old Vietnam combat, veteran (32) started to
complain of depression, headaches, and hearing blurred voices and music.
Skull X-rays showed shrapnel metallic densities in the soft tissues and
cranial bones of the left parieto-occipital region. His perception of
voices and music were matched with stations in the AM broadcast band,
and consistently identified the same station in the 560 Khz range. His
radio- reception involved the metal implant diode rectification of the
radio signal, and its bone transmission to the auditory apparatus. Other
cases of broadcast reception due to dental work have been reported as
well."

The above pseudohallucination is no surprise to me and not at all
fascinating.

Cochlear implants stimulate the peripheral auditory nerve-endings in the
cochlea. Electric signals excite these nerve endings. The neurophone is
said to work differently -- by using electric signals on any nerve in
the body. At a specific frequency this is supposed to stimulate the
auditory areas of the brain. This, according to Flantech, causes a
perception of sound. Isn't this too good to be true, given the state of
today's technology?

Links about neurophone:

1. http://www.neurophone.com/home.htm

2. http://www.worldtrans.org/spir/neuro.html

 

[paradox137]

It was reported it you kill off all nerve cells in the ear and then give a
specific antibotic all nerve cells would grow back as if you were a child
and have superior hearing again. I personally am not will to try it to
discover if this report had any merit.


"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:46f68ab8$0$32528$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, jay1000 <jfschonSpamgu...@cox.net> wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/msg/914ce5039cd5a23d :

This is probably a normal phenomena, even for hearing people. I use a
pillow speaker to help with insomnia by playing music at a loudness
just above the threshhold of hearing. Old favorites are easily
recognizable while new music is just gibberish. I think that it is
something in the brain - not the ears.

Nice to see an interesting year-old thread re-opened. I would be nice to
design an electronic auditory system that is an electronic-equivalent of
the parts of the human brain involved in auditory perception. This device
needs to know exactly how the brain works in terms of auditory perception.
This equipment should be able to generate the intended audio perception
within the brain itself even in an individual who was totally-deaf from
the point of conception onwards due to a congenital absence of peripheral
auditory nerves. Such a device would electronically generate sound
perception -- within the brain itself --
in a similar manner in which auditory hallucinations and audio perceptions
in dreams occur.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

paradox137 wrote:

It was reported it you kill off all nerve cells in the ear and then give a
specific antibotic all nerve cells would grow back as if you were a child
and have superior hearing again. I personally am not will to try it to
discover if this report had any merit.

You're talking about peripheral auditory nerves. No offense but this is
totally-irrelevant.

I am discussing the induction of auditory perceptions in individuals due
to a congenital absence of peripheral auditory nerves. Generating such
perceptions would require stimulation of the correct parts of the brain
using the correct electronic signals. The locations where the electronic
signals are applied as well as the waveforms of the electronic signals
are equally important.

The audio in our dreams/auditory-hallucinations is due to certain areas
of the brain being activated and thus causing the perceptions of sounds.
I suppose it is theoretically-possible to generate these perceptions by
stimulating those regions of the brain with the correct waveform of
electronic signals. This should work even on a full-blown adult who was
conceived without any peripheral auditory nerves.

Electronically-induced auditory hallucinations.

As said above, the content of the audio perceived by the subject is
determined by where -- in the brain -- the electronic signals are
delivered and the shapes of the electronic waves.

The auditory hallucinations one perceives -- in dreams or otherwise --
are due certain regions of his/her brain being stimulated in a certain
manner.

That being said, I believe it should be possible to simulate these
auditory hallucinations/dreams using electronic waves even in a complete
adult who is totally-deaf because he/she was congenitally-free of any
peripheral auditory nerves.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:23:56 -0700, "paradox137" <ronblue@u2ai.us>
wrote:

It was reported it you kill off all nerve cells in the ear and then give a
specific antibotic all nerve cells would grow back as if you were a child
and have superior hearing again. I personally am not will to try it to
discover if this report had any merit.

Hmm, I'd very much like to see a link to this report. No offense, but
I think you may have mis-remembered the details.

I have never heard of an antibiotic that restores hearing, but *many*
antibiotics destroy it, expecially the aminoglycoside antibiotics
(most of those ending in "-mycin"). In experimental work, it is quite
common for an investigator to use an antibiotic to destroy hair cells
(the sensory cells in the cochlea) as a starting point for some
proposed method to regenerate them.

Alas, the regeneration part is still not quite ready for prime time.
It has been shown that if and when hair cells do regenerate,
they apparently do so by a process that involves the supporting
cells differentiating into hair cells. But the percent of hair cells
that do regenerate is pretty small... I don't know a number, but
when results are presented the investigator typically shows a slide
with a single regenerating or regenerated hair cell, in a field of
empty "sockets" of dead hair cells. So maybe a few percent
are regenerated. This line of research is promising, but it's
a long way from getting back to "functional", let alone "superior",
hearing.

Best regards,



Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Ken]

one who looks for hair-cell regeneration should look at sources like
http://tinyurl.com/3amn4g . The actual operation of hair-cells in
hearing is so complicated - an electro-chemical process, not just hair-
cells waggling around -that noone understands it. (And hair-cells are
not hairs - they are erectile - I once suggested in the group that
viagra may have a role - (OK - tasteless!) but someone promptly
pointed to research results!).

 

[Eric R Snow]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:55 GMT, NoSpam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

"
glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, jay1000 <jfschonSpamgu...@cox.net> wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/msg/914ce5039cd5a23d
:

This is probably a normal phenomena, even for hearing people. I use a
pillow speaker to help with insomnia by playing music at a loudness
just above the threshhold of hearing. Old favorites are easily
recognizable while new music is just gibberish. I think that it is
something in the brain - not the ears.

Nice to see an interesting year-old thread re-opened. I would be nice to
design an electronic auditory system that is an electronic-equivalent of
the parts of the human brain involved in auditory perception. This
device needs to know exactly how the brain works in terms of auditory
perception. This equipment should be able to generate the intended audio
perception within the brain itself even in an individual who was
totally-deaf from the point of conception onwards due to a congenital
absence of peripheral auditory nerves. Such a device would
electronically generate sound perception -- within the brain itself --
in a similar manner in which auditory hallucinations and audio
perceptions in dreams occur.

There are a number of research projects which involve stimulating
at higher brain centers than does the coclear prosthesis approach.
The idea is that whatever pre-processing was done at lower levels
would be done by electronics before applying the results to the
higher centers.

The general problem with this approach has to do with the fact that
as you move toward higher centers, there are more and more
cross-connections with other areas. So most people are working
on intermediate centers, where the signal has been only partly
analyzed by lower centers.

Also, consider that there will likely never be a device that is
installed in a congenitally-deaf person that suddenly gives full
normal hearing, He will need to learn to hear, just as we all did,
and make associations with other parts of the brain. "Mother's voice"
and "toilet flushing" are easily distinguishable, but they are likely
not distinguished in the same brain regions, and futhermore the
"mother's voice" distinction will be quite different for each person.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
I think I read that hearing that comes later in life is nowhere near

as useful or intelligible as hearing from birth. Sight suffers in a
similar way. A few adults have had sight for the first time only as
adults. There are rare conditions that can be corrected surgically.
But even though they can see clear images in color their brains are
unable to process these images correctly. For example facial
recognition can be difficult or impossible. So faces either cannot be
recognised as faces or if recognised as a face cannot be
differentiated from other faces.
ERS

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:55 GMT, NoSpam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

There are a number of research projects which involve stimulating
at higher brain centers than does the coclear prosthesis approach.
The idea is that whatever pre-processing was done at lower levels
would be done by electronics before applying the results to the
higher centers.

The general problem with this approach has to do with the fact that
as you move toward higher centers, there are more and more
cross-connections with other areas. So most people are working
on intermediate centers, where the signal has been only partly
analyzed by lower centers.

<snip>

Coincidentally, the seminar I attended yesterday at my old
department (Kresge Hearing Research Institute at the
University of Michigan) was a report by Hubert Lim, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Medizinische Hochschule
Hannover. The seminar title was "A new auditory
prosthesis using midbrain stimulation: Animal and human
results."

He reported on the first 3 human patients who have been
implanted with a prototype electrode array prosthesis that stimulates
the inferior colliculus. That's the 3rd out of 4 intermediate
way-stations that do auditory processing between the cochlea
and the auditory cortex.

There are already a number of patients implanted (at other
institutions) with electrode arrays that stimulate the cochlear
nucleus, the first stop after the cochlea. But these are usually done
in patients that are having tumors removed, and so the condition of
their cochlear nuclei may have been compromised by the tumor. Those
results are nothing exceptional, although the few patients without
tumors do show somewhat better results.

The hope is that the inferior colliculus is far enough removed from
the site of nerve damage that it will still function normally, plus it
has the advantage that it is easier to locate surgically, and that it
has a nice tonotopic organization (at least in rodents... some
controversy about humans). Tonotopic means that there is a frequency
map, so that an array of electrodes should be able to stimulate
different frequency regions.

The initial results are disappointing. In the first 2 patients the
electrode array went into adjacent structures instead of the
inferior colliculus. The 3rd went into the IC, but not the best
portion. All of the patients experience side effects if certain
of the electrodes are stimulated (those farthest from the
target region), so only a small subset of electrodes could be
used (less than a dozen). None of the patients has any real speech
recognition using only the prosthesis, though it may provide
some help in conjunction with normal lip-reading.

But the team is undaunted and is refining methods
to better position the electrode array. A 4th patient has
just been implanted and hopefully will show better results.
There are also thoughts of more advanced electrode
arrangements to provide better frequency coverage.

But as you can see, this is a field still in its infancy.
About where the cochlear prosthesis was 20 years ago,
except that a lot has been learned since then that
should speed developments.

Best regards,



Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[John H.]

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:46fb9d21.1403310@news.sysmatrix.net...

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:55 GMT, NoSpam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

There are a number of research projects which involve stimulating
at higher brain centers than does the coclear prosthesis approach.
The idea is that whatever pre-processing was done at lower levels
would be done by electronics before applying the results to the
higher centers.

The general problem with this approach has to do with the fact that
as you move toward higher centers, there are more and more
cross-connections with other areas. So most people are working
on intermediate centers, where the signal has been only partly
analyzed by lower centers.

snip

Coincidentally, the seminar I attended yesterday at my old
department (Kresge Hearing Research Institute at the
University of Michigan) was a report by Hubert Lim, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Medizinische Hochschule
Hannover. The seminar title was "A new auditory
prosthesis using midbrain stimulation: Animal and human
results."

He reported on the first 3 human patients who have been
implanted with a prototype electrode array prosthesis that stimulates
the inferior colliculus. That's the 3rd out of 4 intermediate
way-stations that do auditory processing between the cochlea
and the auditory cortex.

There are already a number of patients implanted (at other
institutions) with electrode arrays that stimulate the cochlear
nucleus, the first stop after the cochlea. But these are usually done
in patients that are having tumors removed, and so the condition of
their cochlear nuclei may have been compromised by the tumor. Those
results are nothing exceptional, although the few patients without
tumors do show somewhat better results.

The hope is that the inferior colliculus is far enough removed from
the site of nerve damage that it will still function normally, plus it
has the advantage that it is easier to locate surgically, and that it
has a nice tonotopic organization (at least in rodents... some
controversy about humans). Tonotopic means that there is a frequency
map, so that an array of electrodes should be able to stimulate
different frequency regions.

I remember seeing that a long time ago. The map is rather exquisite. It is
remarkable how regions of the CNS develop a particular microarchitecture. I
even used to toy with the idea that geometry at the cellular level plays an
important role in brain function.

Thanks for this post Bob, I think this is a promising approach, I suspect
that "map" is ready for action. It would be interesting to know what happens
to the map when the hearing is lost at the ear. Does it degrade?
Re-organise, get captured for other functions(this can happen)? If it
remains relatively preserved that is a good sign. If it is lost, and
electrodes are implanted, it would be interesting to see what happens then.

The below results are disappointing, and the Wright Brothers flew < 100
yards.

The initial results are disappointing. In the first 2 patients the
electrode array went into adjacent structures instead of the
inferior colliculus. The 3rd went into the IC, but not the best
portion. All of the patients experience side effects if certain
of the electrodes are stimulated (those farthest from the
target region), so only a small subset of electrodes could be
used (less than a dozen). None of the patients has any real speech
recognition using only the prosthesis, though it may provide
some help in conjunction with normal lip-reading.

But the team is undaunted and is refining methods
to better position the electrode array. A 4th patient has
just been implanted and hopefully will show better results.
There are also thoughts of more advanced electrode
arrangements to provide better frequency coverage.

But as you can see, this is a field still in its infancy.
About where the cochlear prosthesis was 20 years ago,
except that a lot has been learned since then that
should speed developments.

Best regards,



Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Saint Isadore Patron Sain]

On Sep 28, 4:44 am, "John H." <bingb...@goaway.com.au> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <NoS...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:46fb9d21.1403310@news.sysmatrix.net...



On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:55 GMT, NoS...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

There are a number of research projects which involve stimulating
at higher brain centers than does the coclear prosthesis approach.
The idea is that whatever pre-processing was done at lower levels
would be done by electronics before applying the results to the
higher centers.

The general problem with this approach has to do with the fact that
as you move toward higher centers, there are more and more
cross-connections with other areas. So most people are working
on intermediate centers, where the signal has been only partly
analyzed by lower centers.

snip

Coincidentally, the seminar I attended yesterday at my old
department (Kresge Hearing Research Institute at the
University of Michigan) was a report by Hubert Lim, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Medizinische Hochschule
Hannover. The seminar title was "A new auditory
prosthesis using midbrain stimulation: Animal and human
results."

He reported on the first 3 human patients who have been
implanted with a prototype electrode array prosthesis that stimulates
the inferior colliculus. That's the 3rd out of 4 intermediate
way-stations that do auditory processing between the cochlea
and the auditory cortex.

There are already a number of patients implanted (at other
institutions) with electrode arrays that stimulate the cochlear
nucleus, the first stop after the cochlea. But these are usually done
in patients that are having tumors removed, and so the condition of
their cochlear nuclei may have been compromised by the tumor. Those
results are nothing exceptional, although the few patients without
tumors do show somewhat better results.

The hope is that the inferior colliculus is far enough removed from
the site of nerve damage that it will still function normally, plus it
has the advantage that it is easier to locate surgically, and that it
has a nice tonotopic organization (at least in rodents... some
controversy about humans). Tonotopic means that there is a frequency
map, so that an array of electrodes should be able to stimulate
different frequency regions.

I remember seeing that a long time ago. The map is rather exquisite. It is
remarkable how regions of the CNS develop a particular microarchitecture. I
even used to toy with the idea that geometry at the cellular level plays an
important role in brain function.

Thanks for this post Bob, I think this is a promising approach, I suspect
that "map" is ready for action. It would be interesting to know what happens
to the map when the hearing is lost at the ear. Does it degrade?
Re-organise, get captured for other functions(this can happen)? If it
remains relatively preserved that is a good sign. If it is lost, and
electrodes are implanted, it would be interesting to see what happens then.

The below results are disappointing, and the Wright Brothers flew < 100
yards.

The initial results are disappointing. In the first 2 patients the
electrode array went into adjacent structures instead of the
inferior colliculus. The 3rd went into the IC, but not the best
portion. All of the patients experience side effects if certain
of the electrodes are stimulated (those farthest from the
target region), so only a small subset of electrodes could be
used (less than a dozen). None of the patients has any real speech
recognition using only the prosthesis, though it may provide
some help in conjunction with normal lip-reading.

But the team is undaunted and is refining methods
to better position the electrode array. A 4th patient has
just been implanted and hopefully will show better results.
There are also thoughts of more advanced electrode
arrangements to provide better frequency coverage.

But as you can see, this is a field still in its infancy.
About where the cochlear prosthesis was 20 years ago,
except that a lot has been learned since then that
should speed developments.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

You actually have to review then research something
to try and understand it - right John?

- Tom

PS: You should see the amazing things that can be
accomplished with a Pathoclast when propertly used.