Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts

Monday, 30 September 2013

Loud in the morning..??

This came up on a Facebook group..
 People with CI experiencing loud noise when turning on the CI in the morning, after a long period of inactivity.

Lotte never had this problem.. (See this post from 2007.. Jeezz.. has it been that long....)

But for those who have this experience.. Here is a possible explanation..
Not that I really understand... out of my league. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------


 2013 Mar 27. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34719. [Epub ahead of print]

Dexamethasone released from cochlear implant coatings combined with a protein repellent hydrogel layer inhibits fibroblast proliferation.

Source

Department of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

The insertion of cochlear implants into the inner ear often causes inflammation and fibrosis inside the scala tympani and thus growth of fibrous tissue on the implant surface. This deposition leads to the loss of function in both electrical and laser-based implants. The design of this study was to realize fibroblast growth inhibition by dexamethasone (Dex) released from the base material of the implant [polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)]. To prevent cell and protein adhesion, the PDMS was coated with a hydrogel layer [star-shaped polyethylene glycol prepolymer (sPEG)]. Drug release rates were studied over 3 months, and surface characterization was performed. It was observed that the hydrogel slightly smoothened the surface roughened by the Dex crystals. The hydrogel coating reduced and prolonged the release of the drug over several months. Unmodified, sPEG-coated, Dex-loaded, and Dex/sPEG-equipped PDMS filaments were cocultivated in vitro with fluorescent fibroblasts, analyzed by fluorescent microscopy, and quantified by cell counting. Compared to the unmodified PDMS, cell growth on all modified filaments was averagely 95% ±standard deviation (SD) less, while cell growth on the bottom of the culture dishes containing Dex-loaded filaments was reduced by 70% ±SD. Both, Dex and sPEG prevented direct cell growth on the filament surfaces, while drug delivery was maintained for the duration of several months. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Have to love science....!!

New discovery may improve cochlear implants for deafness
Published on March 28, 2011 at 3:53 AM

University of Utah scientists used invisible infrared light to make rat heart cells contract and toadfish inner-ear cells send signals to the brain. The discovery someday might improve cochlear implants for deafness and lead to devices to restore vision, maintain balance and treat movement disorders like Parkinson's.
"We're going to talk to the brain with optical infrared pulses instead of electrical pulses," which now are used in cochlear implants to provide deaf people with limited hearing, says Richard Rabbitt, a professor of bioengineering and senior author of the heart-cell and inner-ear-cell studies published this month in The Journal of Physiology.
The studies - funded by the National Institutes of Health - also raise the possibility of developing cardiac pacemakers that use optical signals rather than electrical signals to stimulate heart cells. But Rabbitt says that because electronic pacemakers work well, "I don't see a market for an optical pacemaker at the present time."
The scientific significance of the studies is the discovery that optical signals - short pulses of an invisible wavelength of infrared laser light delivered via a thin, glass optical fiber - can activate heart cells and inner-ear cells related to balance and hearing.
In addition, the research showed infrared activates the heart cells, called cardiomyocytes, by triggering the movement of calcium ions in and out of mitochondria, the organelles or components within cells that convert sugar into usable energy. The same process appears to occur when infrared light stimulates inner-ear cells.
Infrared light can be felt as heat, raising the possibility the heart and ear cells were activated by heat rather than the infrared radiation itself. But Rabbitt and colleagues did "elegant experiments" to show the cells indeed were activated by the infrared radiation, says a commentary in the journal by Ian Curthoys of the University of Sydney, Australia.
Curthoys writes that the research provides "stunningly bright insight" into events within inner-ear cells and "has great potential for future clinical application."

Shedding Infrared Light on Inner-Ear Cells and Heart Cells
The low-power infrared light pulses in the study were generated by a diode - "the same thing that's in a laser pointer, just a different wavelength," Rabbitt says.
The scientists exposed the cells to infrared light in the laboratory. The heart cells in the study were newborn rat heart muscle cells called cardiomyocytes, which make the heart pump. The inner-ear cells are hair cells, and came from the inner-ear organ that senses motion of the head. The hair cells came from oyster toadfish, which are well-establish models for comparison with human inner ears and the sense of balance.
Inner-ear hair cells "convert the mechanical vibration from sound, gravity or motion into the signal that goes to the brain" via adjacent nerve cells, says Rabbitt.
Using infrared radiation, "we were stimulating the hair cells, and they dumped neurotransmitter onto the neurons that sent signals to the brain," Rabbitt says.
He believes the inner-ear hair cells are activated by infrared radiation because "they are full of mitochondria, which are a primary target of this wavelength."
The infrared radiation affects the flow of calcium ions in and out of mitochondria - something shown by the companion study in neonatal rat heart cells.
That is important because for "excitable" nerve and muscle cells, "calcium is like the trigger for making these cells contract or release neurotransmitter," says Rabbitt.
The heart cell study found that an infrared pulse lasting a mere one-5,000th of a second made mitochondria rapidly suck up calcium ions within a cell, then slowly release them back into the cell - a cycle that makes the cell contract.
"Calcium does that normally," says Rabbitt. "But it's normally controlled by the cell, not by us. So the infrared radiation gives us a tool to control the cell. In the case of the [inner-ear] neurons, you are controlling signals going to the brain. In the case of the heart, you are pacing contraction."

New Possibilities for Optical versus Electrical Cochlear Implants
Rabbitt believes the research - including a related study of the cochlea last year - could lead to better cochlear implants that would use optical rather than electrical signals.
Existing cochlear implants convert sound into electrical signals, which typically are transmitted to eight electrodes in the cochlea, a part of the inner ear where sound vibrations are converted to nerve signals to the brain. Eight electrodes can deliver only eight frequencies of sound, Rabbitt says.
"A healthy adult can hear more than 3,000 different frequencies. With optical stimulation, there's a possibility of hearing hundreds or thousands of frequencies instead of eight. Perhaps someday an optical cochlear implant will allow deaf people to once again enjoy music and hear all the nuances in sound that a hearing person would enjoy."

Unlike electrical current, which spreads through tissue and cannot be focused to a point, infrared light can be focused, so numerous wavelengths (corresponding to numerous frequencies of sound) could be aimed at different cells in the inner ear.
Nerve cells that send sound signals from the ears to the brain can fire more than 300 times per second, so ideally, a cochlear implant using infrared light would be able to perform as well. In the Utah experiments, the researchers were able to apply laser pulses to hair cells to make adjacent nerve cells fire up to 100 times per second. For a cochlear implant, the nerve cells would be activated within infrared light instead of the hair cells.
Rabbitt cautioned it may be five to 10 years before the development of cochlear implants that run optically. To be practical, they need a smaller power supply and light source, and must be more power efficient to run on small batteries like a hearing aid.

Optical Prosthetics for Movement, Balance and Vision Disorders
Electrical deep-brain stimulation now is used to treat movement disorders such asParkinson's disease and "essential tremor, which causes rhythmic movement of the limbs so it becomes difficult to walk, function and eat," says Rabbitt.
He is investigating whether optical rather than electrical deep-brain stimulation might increase how long the treatment is effective.
Rabbitt also sees potential for optical implants to treat balance disorders.
"When we get old, we shuffle and walk carefully, not because our muscles don't work but because we have trouble with balance," he says. "This technology has potential for restoring balance by restoring the signals that the healthy ear sends to the brain about how your body is moving in space."
Optical stimulation also might provide artificial vision in people with retinitis pigmentosaor other loss of retinal cells - the eye cells that detect light and color - but who still have the next level of cells, known as ganglia, Rabbitt says.
"You would wear glasses with a camera [mounted on the frames] and there would be electronics that would convert signals from the camera into pulses of infrared radiation that would be patterned onto the diseased retina that normally does not respond to light but would respond to the pulsed infrared radiation" to create images, he says.
Hearing and vision implants that use optical rather than electrical signals do not have to penetrate the brain or other nerve tissue because infrared light can penetrate "quite a bit of tissue," so devices emitting the light "have potential for excellent biocompatibility," Rabbitt says. "You will be able to implant optical devices and leave them there for life."
Source: University of Utah


Friday, 11 December 2009

Good basic info regarding Bi-lateral CI....

From a thesis by Carol A. Sammeth, Ph.D, CCC-A

Please be careful that the statements selected are representative of the paper's overall conclusions.  Also, the part posted is only a piece of a longer work. (Full pdf here..)
------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF REVIEW OF BENEFITS OF TWO-EARED INPUT


The Psychoacoustic Literature
There is a fairly voluminous literature in psychoacoustics (hearing science) illustrating the benefits in normal hearing persons of having two-eared rather than one-eared input. When hearing loss disrupts the ability of the brain to process binaural inputs, whether due to large differences in the degree of loss between the ears, or a failure to provide amplification or a cochlear implant to one impaired ear, these benefits can be severely degraded or lost. There are three primary effects ascribed to binaural listening: the head shadow effect, the binaural summation effect, and the binaural squelch effect (e.g. Durlach & Colburn, 1978), producing benefits that range from improved speech recognition in noise, to the ability to localize the direction of a sound, to more “natural” perception. The following briefly describes the key benefits of binaural functioning.

Head Shadow Effect
When speech and noise come from different directions (i.e. are spatially separated, as typically occurs in the real world), there is always a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at one ear than at the other because of the head shadow effect and different sound distances to the ears. The head shadow effect is primarily seen in frequencies higher than 1500 Hz (e.g. Shaw, 1974), with the amount of attenuation of sounds from the opposite side of the head dependent on frequency but ranging from about 7 dB in the speech range up to 20 dB or more at the highest frequencies. If both ears are participatory, the ear with the most favorable SNR is always available so that the patient can selectively attend to this ear. This is compared to the unfavorable situation where only the ear with the poorer SNR is functional. Persons with unilateral hearing loss can become very frustrated when people are talking on both sides of them because they must constantly turn their “good ear” to whomever they want to hear best at the time, and then they miss sounds on the deaf ear side.

As will be shown later in this paper, a primary benefit of bilateral cochlear implants appears to be related to the beneficial aspects of hearing from both sides, and always having the ear with the more favorable SNR available. This is generally tested with speech from a frontal speaker and noise from a side speaker - - when the second ear is added that is contralateral to (opposite side of) the noise source, performance benefit comes primarily from the head shadow effect. Note, however, that there is discrepancy across the published studies in how to quantify the head shadow effect, with some researchers merely examining differences in scores with sound ipsilateral versus contralateral to a unilateral ear under test, and others comparing the score for listening with bilateral inputs to that for unilateral listening with the noise presented ipsilateral to the ear under test.

Binaural Summation & Redundancy
Sounds that are presented to both ears rather than just one are perceived as louder due to binaural summation of the information received at each ear. In fact, the threshold of hearing is known to improve by about 3 dB for binaural versus monaural presentation to normal ears, resulting in a doubling of perceptual loudness and improved sensitivity to fine differences in the intensity and frequency domains. This latter effect is sometimes referred to as binaural redundancy, and it is believed that it may translate into improved speech perception scores. When listening to speech with only one ear in a difficult listening situation or with one ear with greater sensorineural hearing impairment than the other, there is a loss of the redundancy in cues across the ears that may reduce performance.

The benefit of the binaural redundancy aspect of bilateral inputs is typically tested by presenting speech alone or having speech and noise emanate from the same loudspeaker frontally - - when the second ear is added, benefit is possible through redundancies or overlaps in representation at the two ears. In a normal hearing ear, this effect produces about a 1 to 2 dB improvement in SNR (Bronkhorst & Plomp, 1988). At this time, there is only limited evidence for true binaural redundancy effects on speech perception results in the
bilateral cochlear implant literature reviewed herein. This effect is probably not stronger either because such subtle cues are not able to be utilized by ears that have severe to profound hearing loss, or simply because the signal processing available in today’s cochlear implants (with two implants processing independently) does not adequately maintain these interaural cues.

Binaural loudness summation has been shown to occur, however, and is a potential confounding factor in comparing across studies. While most researchers have adjusted the loudness of the implant processing for binaural presentation versus monaural presentation (and made sure loudness is reasonably balanced across the ears), some have not. In a clinical bilateral implant fitting, it would generally be presumed that loudness would be adjusted so that the patient’s overall loudness comfort level is reasonable, and thus any purely binaural summation effects would be reduced or negated for bilateral listening compared to a previous unilateral implant.

Binaural Squelch/Unmasking
A person with only one functioning ear can usually understand conversation well when listening in a quiet environment, as long as the sounds of speech are made loud enough. However, even a normal hearing person who is listening in high levels of background noise can find speech understanding to be difficult in an adverse listening situation (consider, for example, competing conversations with multiple persons seated at a long table in a very high noise level restaurant). This occurs partly because of direct masking and partly because of upward spread of masking on the basilar membrane of the cochlea (whereby low-frequency sounds have a greater impact on reducing perception of higher-frequency sounds than vice versa). Speech recognition in such noisy environments is even harder for a person with sensorineural hearing loss both because of the inherent distortion and loss of normal nonlinearities introduced by cochlear damage, and because these patients show even greater amounts of upward spread of masking effects than do normal ears.

Fortunately, the auditory nervous system is wired to help in noisy situations as long as there is functional input from both ears - - that is, the auditory system and brain can combine information from both ears so that there is a better central representation than would be had with only information from one ear (e.g. Zurek, 1993). This effect, commonly referred to as binaural squelch (but also sometimes called binaural unmasking), results from the brainstem nuclei processing timing, amplitude, and spectral differences between the ears to provide a clearer separation of the speech and noise signals. The squelch effect takes advantage of the spatial separation of the signal source and the noise source(s) and the differences in time and intensity that these create at each ear. This is generally tested with speech from a front speaker and noise from a side speaker - - when the second ear is added that is ipsilateral to (same side as) the noise source, any benefit comes from the binaural squelch effect. There is some limited evidence of improved speech understanding in noise in bilateral cochlear implant patients due to binaural squelch effects, although the effect is not seen across all bilateral implant users or studies, and is not as large as the head shadow effect.

Note that binaural summation and squelch are signs of the ability of the auditory nervous system to integrate, fuse, and use information from the two ears. In contrast, the head shadow effect merely results from the physical attenuation of sound across the head and does not require central nervous system integration - - This does not negate the fact, however, that the head shadow effect is a substantial factor in everyday performance for those listeners with unilateral versus bilateral devices.

Localization
Finally, perhaps the most well-known practical binaural benefit is the ability to localize (i.e. determine the direction that a sound is coming from). This function is dependent on auditory Bimodal Devices and Bilateral CIs, page 9 system perception of interaural (between ear) differences in time, intensity, and phase (e.g. Yost & Dye, 1997). Localization ability can be a safety consideration. For example, when crossing a busy street, it is important to know the direction that a car is coming from. Persons with significant unilateral hearing impairment can also attest to the frustration of hearing their name spoken but not knowing which direction to turn in order to find the person calling them.

Research to date has focused on localization of sound sources in the horizontal azimuth, but keep in mind that it is also possible for a listener to differentiate sound sources in the vertical plane (by elevation) and in terms of the distance from the listener. It is well known that interaural timing differences provide the information necessary to locate the direction of low frequency sounds - - specifically, those less than about 1500 Hz. For sounds that are higher in frequency, the main cue for horizontal plane localization is the interaural intensity difference that occurs because of the head shadow effect. In addition, head and pinna shadow effects,
pinna filtering effects, and torso absorption properties can all contribute to spectral differences that can be particularly helpful in determining elevation of a sound. For a listener with only one functional ear, there are very few cues to assist in sound localization although some rudimentary localization ability can still exist. The literature on bilateral cochlear implants provides significant and substantial evidence that localization abilities are enhanced with the use of both ears versus just one.

Friday, 11 September 2009

Bilateral CI..

Lots of information can be found here, at the Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory
May articles can be found, that can be used to argue for bi-lateral CI, if needed..

Thursday, 20 December 2007

Restoring the senses..

On one of the messageboards a link was given to audiofiles of 6 lectures.
Well worth the downloading and listning to it on your computer or MP3-player

The Boyer Lectures:
Every year the ABC invites a prominent Australian to present their ideas, and the results of his or her work and thinking on major social, scientific or cultural issues in a series of radio talks, which have become known as the Boyer Lectures.

The series was inaugurated in 1959 as The ABC Lectures, but in 1961 the series was renamed, as a memorial to Sir Richard Boyer, former Chairman of the ABC, who had been largely responsible for its introduction.

(From this webside)
This year marks the 48th anniversary of the Boyer Lectures.

Professor Graeme Clark, creator of the bionic ear, is ABC Radio National's Boyer lecturer for 2007. In this series of six lectures ..., Professor Clark draws on decades of experience as a clinician, surgeon and researcher to celebrate our senses. He also tells the compelling story of how the bionic ear was created, and provides an insight into the extraordinary future of bionics.

In the introduction to his first lecture Professor Clark provides his own overview of what he will discuss in this lecture series.

"In Restoring the Senses I want to highlight the importance of our senses, and how they can be restored with bionics. In the course of the first lecture, I hope you will appreciate the amazing way our senses function. Then in the second lecture, discover how we are affected by the loss of any one of these senses, as they are the only way we experience the world around us. In the third lecture I will explain how I set out to restore the sense of hearing. In lecture four we will learn how the bionic ear became a reality for those severely and profoundly deaf people who had hearing before going deaf. In the fifth lecture we will discover that children born deaf can use a bionic ear to develop normal spoken language. Finally, in the sixth lecture we will learn how bionic ear research has created a new field of Medical Bionics, which I hope will eventually lead to a bionic eye for blindness, a bionic spinal cord, and bionic nerve repair to help restore the senses of touch and movement."

2007 Boyer Lectures - Restoring The Senses

Saturday, 18 August 2007

Cued Speech

Sometimes, things just happen to you, to us.
Like in March this year, (And I found out even before that, in October 2006) there was a topic on AllDeaf about Cued Speech. A video in there that can be downloaded from YouTube, giving information about Cued Speech.
I looked at it, and was touched by it, but with my wife being busy with her study, I never mentioned it to her.
Until yesterday, when she asked me what "CS" meant.
I explained, and showed her the video. (See below.)



That struck a cord - big time.
The most amazing thing is that it does not exist in Norway. The information available comes from USA, UK, France and Spain (but I'm sure there are many more countries with lots of info) and shows that it has been used in The Netherlands and also in Denmark. But still.... we never came in contact with it.

So, the last couple of days, the search is on, and my wife is teaching herself CS !!

Some links to more info..
Cued Speech Info
BATOD article (The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf)

Friday, 15 September 2006

Overview of studies regarding bi-lateral CI

Here is the pdf:
http://www.bionicear.com/printables/reimbursement/BilateralCIBibliography-092006.pdf

Wednesday, 15 September 2004

(Some) Milestones

  • 2013-08: Grade 6
  • 2012-08: Grade 5
  • 2011-08: Grade 4
  • 2011-03: BTE's on the ear
  • 2010-08: Grade 3
  • 2009-08: Grade 2
  • 2008-08: Mainstream School (6y. old)
  • 2006-10: All-hearing Kindergarten (4y. old)
  • 2004-11-22: CI activated (27 m. old)
  • 2004-10-04: Bi-lateral CI (26 m. old)
  • 2003-08: Deaf/HOH/CI Pre-school/"DEAF" Kindergarten (12m. old)
  • 2003-07: HA's fitted (11 m. old)
  • 2003-06: Diagnosed deaf. Start sign-language (10m. old)
  • 2002-11: Suspicion loss of hearing (4 m. old)
  • 2002-08: Born - A fierce LION
--- Google Analytics