[Tjj226 Angel]

Oh I should also say that I would not have the surgery. 
 
It is not that I would doubt the technology.....at all. But uhhhhhhh I like my brain, and I don't really want people to go messing around with it. Not to sound arrogant, ignorant, or boastful, but I really believe that my intelligence is all I really have to my name (it certainly is not money 

) and one of my biggest fears is to have something up in my head knocked too hard or nicked by a surgeon and lose the one thing that I actually like about myself. 
 
It would be one thing if it were like something that would allow me to know everything, or something that would give me laser vision or something along those lines, but sound wise......noooo I think I am good with electrostatic headphones. 

 

[squallkiercosa]

Quote:

Difference of opinion? 20-20khz is the generally accepted normal range but that is not some hard coded limit. Even non toddlers are responsive to audio beyond 20khz. Check this out http://recordinghacks.com/articles/the-world-beyond-20khz/

Don't believe everything written on the internet. Besides, how can you test if a child is really listening?

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Quote:

We must look at the mechanisms involved in hearing, and attempt to understand them. 
 
From wikipedia:
Humans have a maximum aural range that begins as low as 12 Hz under ideal laboratory conditions,^[3] to 20 kHz^{[note 1]} in most children and some adults. The range shrinks during life, usually beginning at around age of 8 with the upper frequency limit lowering. Inaudible sound waves can be detected (felt) by humans through physical body vibration in the range of 4 to 16 Hz.
 
Babies can hear frequencies beyond 20khz: myth

..........I feel like you are trying to screw over your own argument there. 
 
The human brain is capable of hearing frequencies much higher/lower than what our ears can process. The fact that we can't hear x.y.z frequency is because our ears go bad after a while. 
 
If you had a neural implant, then you are bypassing the ear and the only bottle neck would be the human brain, and god only knows what kind of frequencies we could possible process. 
 
It is kind of like the same thing with human sight. Our brain can process light frequencies far beyond what our eyes can pick up on. If you bypass the eye and rely on the brain, some scientists believe we could see in infrared. 

 

[jerg]

Quote:

Don't believe everything written on the internet. Besides, how can you test if a child is really listening?

Simple way to test would be to have babies placed in a small white room, have say 3 or 4 evenly spaced hidden sources of ultrasound, and broadcast ultrasound through one of them at random points in time while gradually lowering the ultrasound freq (say start at 25kHz and approach toward 20kHz at 250Hz intervals) to determine at what point the toddler would start 1) respond to the ultrasound signal turning its head and 2) to the right direction. I don't see how most confounding variables aren't being controlled for in this simple experimental design.
 
Edit: the only flaw in this design would be the risk of under-representing the extent of toddler hearing freq ceiling, since they might not know to turn their heads in response to very high frequency signals, even if they hear them.

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Quote:

Don't believe everything written on the internet. Besides, how can you test if a child is really listening?

It has been proved in labs before. Whether or not that source is reliable or not, I honestly don't know, but stuff like that has been in science magazines for years. 
 
Keep in mind, the human ear relies on several parts that go bad....pretty easily in fact. A baby hasn't had enough time on this planet to have the ossiculer chain wear out. Plus as that age, I am sure there are so many progenitor cells for things like the tempaneous membrane and the cochlea that any damage that does happen to the babies ears, that it will be repaired where as adults don't have those cells any more so we are bum out of luck. However that doesn't mean that the human brain can't still process those frequencies if it were allowed to do so by way of a neural implant. 

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Quote:

 
One thing to note is that animals like dolphins and whales have different brain structure with more "space" dedicated to auditory processing. Of course they have the ability to "see" with sound so they obviously have timing and dimensional processing capability that would be a match for the very best sonar created by people. Tests have shown that dolphins can distinguish an object as small and flat as a dime on the bottom of a pool using only sonar. The human brain is going to be somewhat limited by comparison.
 
Another thing to note is that hearing loss is actually nerve damage due to over stimulation. It's possible that wiring such a device directly to the brain could cause trauma over time due to over stimulation of auditory processing centers.

For your first statement, that is true, but I guess I am missing how that relates to what I said? I do not know if that was intended as a counter argument, or if you are just adding extra info. I was relating adult human hearing to newborn hearing, not humans to animals. 
 
As for the second part, I am not talking about hearing loss in terms of amplification, I am referring to hearing loss in terms of frequency response. If the 'hammer' section of the ossecular chain has been worn down, then a pressure wave that lacks any actually pressure will not have enough energy to force the incus bone to strike/push on the stapes bone. In this type of hearing loss we hear nothing, in nerve damage, the sound would just be so quiet that you could probably pick up on it if you turned the volume up to ungodly heights.
 
Also, I doubt that such a device would case trauma. At that point you are just sending electrical signals along biological wires. Now what would be interesting to see is if after picking up on what would be foreign auditory signals that the human brain would simply not produce the right chemical to tell other parts of the human brain that there is sound in x y z direction. One could think of it as if a human being as become so desensitized that the initial shock value from hearing those frequencies again makes the body's homeostasis system to kick in and simply stop the production of whatever chemical is attributed to that particular sound. It would also be interesting because it would probably do far more damage to other parts of the brain as well. 
 
However that is purely theoretical. Maybe my sister would like to volunteer for some trial and error experimentation. 

 

[R-Audiohead]

This is of course assuming MANY things.
 
Since there are so many to discuss I'll throw one out there just for ****s and giggles
We're assuming that the action potential generated by the implanted device could accurately receive a signal (externally?) and translate that signal into action potentials at the synapse all WHILE bypassing the designed mechanoreceptor to create these action potentials in the first place.  Is this going to be mediated by nuerotransmitter release at the presynaptic site?  How will you "refill" the device with nuerotransmitter?  Don't want to use nuerotransmitter?  Remember, if you want to stimulate the mechanoreceptor to ellict nuerotransmitter release you run the same risk of wearing it out.
 
A capacitive charged device which uses polarity to open a set and specific number and pattern of potassium/sodium channels to essentially create specific action potentials is the only way I could see this done, and we're still at the mercy of the input device... meaning you couldn't just "think" sounds.
 
We also have to remember the risks.  Overstimulating a nerve leads to changes in the central nervous system in some cases... temporary and even permanent (ala chronic pain disorders)
 
Now if you're talking about replacing the nerve all together that is an entirely different scenario.
 
Cheers to useless and interesting discussion

 

[R-Audiohead]

Also, I believe the implant devices you have been talking about for deaf people still utilize a mechanical microphone to receive input waves and simulate damaged mechanoreceptors to create action potentials.
 
So that's an entirely different mechanism than what the OP is talking about

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Quote:

This is of course assuming MANY things.
 
Since there are so many to discuss I'll throw one out there just for ****s and giggles
We're assuming that the action potential generated by the implanted device could accurately receive a signal (externally?) and translate that signal into action potentials at the synapse all WHILE bypassing the designed mechanoreceptor to create these action potentials in the first place.  Is this going to be mediated by nuerotransmitter release at the presynaptic site?  How will you "refill" the device with nuerotransmitter?  Don't want to use nuerotransmitter?  Remember, if you want to stimulate the mechanoreceptor to ellict nuerotransmitter release you run the same risk of wearing it out.
 
A capacitive charged device which uses polarity to open a set and specific number and pattern of potassium/sodium channels to essentially create specific action potentials is the only way I could see this done, and we're still at the mercy of the input device... meaning you couldn't just "think" sounds.
 
We also have to remember the risks.  Overstimulating a nerve leads to changes in the central nervous system in some cases... temporary and even permanent (ala chronic pain disorders)
 
Now if you're talking about replacing the nerve all together that is an entirely different scenario.
 
Cheers to useless and interesting discussion

 
 
 
I think replacing the nerve would be the best way to go. I have been thinking of a way to record audio. What about replacing the human ear with a sort of reversed electrostatic headphone. If you make a sort of horn that mimics the ear of that individual before it is removed, you could make a cast of it. Then you would replace the tempaneous membrane with the electrostatic headphone. You would make the mylar something that is electrically charged, and would react with a stator behind the mylar. The stator could be connected to a computer that would recognize the disturbance in the electrical field and record it is a particular digital signal. Then us an optical signal connection to some type of dac that would convert your basic electrical signal into something similar to a biological signal and send it to the brain. 
 
As it already stands, there is a extremely low distortion rate on electrostats, and if the computers are calibrated right, then it could work. 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
 
 
I think replacing the nerve would be the best way to go. I have been thinking of a way to record audio. What about replacing the human ear with a sort of reversed electrostatic headphone. If you make a sort of horn that mimics the ear of that individual before it is removed, you could make a cast of it. Then you would replace the tempaneous membrane with the electrostatic headphone. You would make the mylar something that is electrically charged, and would react with a stator behind the mylar. The stator could be connected to a computer that would recognize the disturbance in the electrical field and record it is a particular digital signal. Then us an optical signal connection to some type of dac that would convert your basic electrical signal into something similar to a biological signal and send it to the brain. 
 
As it already stands, there is a extremely low distortion rate on electrostats, and if the computers are calibrated right, then it could work. 

That's a lot of conversion.
 
We also must remember that electricity in the body is not the same as the traditional electricity we think of (I see you understand this based on the bolded).  That means replacing the nerve means losing the medium to conduct the specific signal the area of the brain must receive.

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Quote:

That's a lot of conversion.
 
We also must remember that electricity in the body is not the same as the traditional electricity we think of (I see you understand this based on the bolded).  That means replacing the nerve means losing the medium to conduct the specific signal the area of the brain must receive.

But that is what I have been researching for the past year or so. See we could just pump chemicals in specific quantities to certain parts of the brain to generate sort of like mini me action potentials. I have actually been trying to see if we couldn't use such a technology to allow us to use neurons for a sort of biological calculator. Granted I think you or someone else mentioned that you would have to refill such a thing, but I think that would be easy compared to everything else. 
 
I am also aware that this conversation is not going to lead us to make a complete cure for hearing loss, and that any one of our ideas will have holes, but despite that fact, this is one of the more interesting discussions I have had in a long time. 

 

[obobskivich]

Also, I believe the implant devices you have been talking about for deaf people still utilize a mechanical microphone to receive input waves and simulate damaged mechanoreceptors to create action potentials.

Indeed. They work on the mechanoreceptor afaik - they're more similar to the Teac bone conduction headphones and do not restore 100% audition from what I understand (you aren't getting Six Million Dollar Man even though you're probably spending nearly that much - you have very primative/basic audition after). Here's more from Wikipedia (which is seriously accurate enough for this discussion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_brainstem_implant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

Hearing aids in general only care about speech intelligibility and situational awareness - not high fidelity by any means. Etyomotic has some equipment designed for front-line combat troops and SWAT units that is designed to improve on natural hearing (civilians can buy most of it afaik), but it requires functional natural hearing to work. Here:
http://www.etymotic.com/hp/ebp.html

So no, we aren't "curing deafness" with these devices - they're a long way off actually. They're focused on improving QOL more than anything else - you go from more or less zero sensation to minimal sensation, and then through fairly rigorous intervention learn how to live in an adapted/accessible worldspace. Sorry if this seems too ranty, but I have a big issue when people talk about disability or exceptionality as something that can just be magically "cured" or "gotten over" through technology or time.

I think replacing the nerve would be the best way to go. I have been thinking of a way to record audio. What about replacing the human ear with a sort of reversed electrostatic headphone. If you make a sort of horn that mimics the ear of that individual before it is removed, you could make a cast of it. Then you would replace the tempaneous membrane with the electrostatic headphone. You would make the mylar something that is electrically charged, and would react with a stator behind the mylar. The stator could be connected to a computer that would recognize the disturbance in the electrical field and record it is a particular digital signal. Then us an optical signal connection to some type of dac that would convert your basic electrical signal into something similar to a biological signal and send it to the brain. 

As it already stands, there is a extremely low distortion rate on electrostats, and if the computers are calibrated right, then it could work. 

You're describing a condenser microphone or laser microphone, roughly, and neither is plausible for what you want for a few reasons:

- They lack perfect phase coherence
- They lack perfect frequency response

(this can be summarized into: they are not DC-to-light devices)

They will both start out "worse" than what human hearing starts out with, will be more fragile, and we're ignoring the size, power, etc requirements. Plus the computer. So now we're basically talking a body-pack system (and probably a few million dollars, realistically speaking) to very poorly attempt to replicate audition (even if we assume the computer<-> brain thing could be worked out, and ABIs presently are not at the level you'd need them to be). And remember that the biggest loss with these systems is always on the frequency extremes, so I doubt if you'd even be able to get 20-20. Sure, if you could make all of this work in a compact, safe, and so on system it'd be a fantastic innovation in the world of hearing aids, and I'm sure you could help a lot of people with profound hearing loss, but it still isn't going to get you "superhuman" abilities or increased longevity (it would have to be replaced periodically, as anything else man-made does).

Transducer technology is nowhere near good enough to stack up to the requirements here - you'd need a purely biological solution. For example if you had a "canned" solution where you grow "super ears" and transplant those. Of course I doubt neurosurgery and bio-engineering are robust enough to do that today, but I think it would be more feasible to say lets clone up the ear of a bat, or a cat, or a dog, and transplant it onto a human, than to build a mechanical device attempting to do the same thing (gets around all of the electromechanical problems, basically).

Oh and regarding "but use the electrostatic headphone as the mic" - speakers-as-mic produce TERRIBLE sound quality, but what you're describing does exist. They're called intercoms. And an electrostatic headphone requires a huge diaphragm, and wall power for the power supply. It's not exactly portable, and would do much worse than using conventional microphones.


As far as the original "some magical solution" - I'd still say no, because there is no free lunch, and aging and dying is part of life.

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

Sorry if this seems too ranty, but I have a big issue when people talk about disability or exceptionality as something that can just be magically "cured" or "gotten over" through technology or time.

 

Student Physical Therapist here
 
Cheers to that statement

 

[obobskivich]

Oh and I didn't mean to come across like I was trying to ream anyone out btw (I edited a lot of my post down and I think I lost a lot of the "happy" pieces in a result - it was originally like a solid page of text and I figured nobody wanted to read "the wall" tonight) - this is indeed an interesting discussion.

Student Physical Therapist here

Cheers to that statement

As someone who very peripherally works with your chosen profession - my hat is seriously off to you.

 

[YGuyG]

I miss being able to hear 21khz and even higher. I could just a few years ago, 19 now. I can still hear 10hz on some good IEMs. But the older you get the less you can hear. All these background sounds that are part of the recording itself, specifically the high pitched ones, I won't be able to hear some day. That sucks pretty hard. I never got why people said humans can't hear below 20hz, I most certainly can.