Slashdot Mirror
How Apple Is Putting Voices In Users' Heads -- Literally (wired.com)
schwit1 shared WIRED's report on "a life-changing technology." Steven Levy spoke with Mathias Bahnmueller as he tested a new Apple sound processor that beams digital audio directly into hearing aids.
Bahnmueller suffers from hearing loss so severe that a year ago he underwent surgery to install a cochlear implant -- an electronic device in the inner ear that replaces the usual hearing mechanism. Around a million patients have undergone this increasingly mainstream form of treatment, and that's just a fraction of those who could benefit from it. (Of the 360 million people worldwide with hearing loss, about 10 percent would qualify for the surgery.) "For those who reach a point where hearing aids no longer help, this is the only solution," says Allison Biever, an audiologist in Englewood, CO who works with implant patients. "It's like restoring a signal in a radio station."
Cochlear implants bypass the usual hearing process by embedding a device in the inner ear and connecting it via electrodes to the nerve that sends audio signals to the brain... The system Bahnmueller was using came from a collaboration between Apple and Cochlear, a company that has been involved with implant technology since the treatment's early days. The firms announced last week that the first product based on this approach, Cochlear's Nucleus 7 sound processor, won FDA approval in June -- the first time that the agency has approved such a link between cochlear implants and phones or tablets. Those using the system can not only get phone calls directly routed inside their skulls, but also stream music, podcasts, audio books, movie soundtracks, and even Siri -- all straight to the implant... Apple will offer the technology free to qualified manufacturers.
Google's accessibility team for Android has no public timeline for any similar hearing aid support, though according to the article it's "on the roadmap."
Cochlear implants bypass the usual hearing process by embedding a device in the inner ear and connecting it via electrodes to the nerve that sends audio signals to the brain... The system Bahnmueller was using came from a collaboration between Apple and Cochlear, a company that has been involved with implant technology since the treatment's early days. The firms announced last week that the first product based on this approach, Cochlear's Nucleus 7 sound processor, won FDA approval in June -- the first time that the agency has approved such a link between cochlear implants and phones or tablets. Those using the system can not only get phone calls directly routed inside their skulls, but also stream music, podcasts, audio books, movie soundtracks, and even Siri -- all straight to the implant... Apple will offer the technology free to qualified manufacturers.
Google's accessibility team for Android has no public timeline for any similar hearing aid support, though according to the article it's "on the roadmap."
How's this any different than the tele-coils current cell phones use?
http://www.betterhearing.org/hearingpedia/hearing-aid-compatible-cell-phones
how could they have tech that Google doesn't? Why would they add accessibility technology for free? This defies all of my preconceived notions, I'll just pretend I never saw this story.
Yep exactly. They'll offer this service as a system to benefit public health etc, get it out there, but in the fine print using the technology allows them to play ads. More specifically they're now trying to find ways of bypassing "I don't want to fucking look at this or hear it so I turn it down or look away".
Like they'll let you have volume control etc but disabled muting the video etc while an ad is playing, and you can't even block your ears.
Leela: "Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?"
Fry: "Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!"
I wondered how long it would take someone to come up with some anti-Apple spin to this.
Answer: 9 minutes.
What's going to stop them from playing ads directly into someones brain?
Well Google said it's "on the roadmap" for Android so not that long.
Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to broadcast the signal instead of beaming it?
Or is this another case of how language usage like grammar, spelling, and meaning, doesn't matter online, and they just said "beaming" because it sounds better than the truth?
Youâ(TM)re misunderstanding Appleâ(TM)s Business model - they sell you a device, then the transaction is finished. Itâ(TM)s one reason why appleâ(TM)s hardware is expensive.
Theyâ(TM)re about the last company that will try to make it less likely that youâ(TM)ll buy another bit of their hardware by pushing ads on you.
Scare-mongering fake news article produced by the deaf lobby. (Yes there is a big cabal of rich deaf people, who promote deafness worldwide as a positive thing and oppose treatments. They even hire Mengele-style madmen doctors to sort their sperm and eggs, so that only 100% guaranteed deaf kids will be produced.)
Cochlear implants are the most useful invention mankind made in the last 40 years or so and it's not getting the Nobel Prize for Medicine only because there are several hereditary mega-rich and deaf clans, especially in the USA, which wage a crusade against it. They think being deaf is normal, the deaf are not disabled (lions, tigers and speeding buses disagree) and the hearing people should learn the hand-waving "sign language".
Luckily, there is at least one european country which is now considering mandatory cochlear implants for deaf babies, under the auspecies of its mandatory vaccination regime, by classifiying a new generation syringe-implanted micro cochlear device as a vaccine, so that stupid / evil parents cannot curse kids to life-long deafness. Due to costs it will be only one ear per kid, but that's enough to learn how to speak and also preserves the other ear intact should even better treatment emerge in the future, like genetic engineering, for exampe.
Actually the whole technology is old.
- Cochlear implant are old tech (I had to do some papers on their society impact back when I was studying medicine)
- Having dedicated connection for phone was something normal (Several of the patient I was following had some plug - basically an audio jack that they can plug into phone/audio players/etc. to pick up sound instead of external mic)
- Even some bluetooth connectivity has recently appeared over the last few years.
TFA's implant is only "new" due to some technicality.
(First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
This is mainly PR to attract publicity to Apple (who need to put some effort to try to stay relevant in a post-smartphone-peak era)
(and maybe hope that they become the default "go to" manufacturer for accessories to connect an implant to),
PR for cochlear implants in general to attract money for a health problem (which is actually important)
PR for this peculiar manufacturer (...well...)
But it's definitely not something Apple has managed to beat Google on.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
this is really cool, potentially life-changing tech.
No, it's not.
It's a tech that has already changed many lives in the past.
And Apple managed to find some technicality to be "first" on some minor variations (my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor), and thus throw a cheap public stunt.
Though the PR might attract some financing in a health field (which might be good in my book). ...that is, until the SoC gets hacked remotely over bluetooth.
Given the current security trend that's a certainty, and the PR will backfire if the incident is a major one.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Russian sleeper cell. Whisper in your ear while asleep. Hack the microphone to listen in on conversations. We all know how great IoT security is. I'm sure it'll be fine. If not, we'll never know because it's proprietary and Apple is "perfect." Too much money to be gained from conversation mining. Facefarm mines via sonic signals from TV commercials and text messages, so I guess they'll figure out how to use this too.
What apples doiing isn't particularly amazing, guys it's bluetooth. Interesting but not amazing.
What the cochlear implant does is amazing, and its been amazing since the technology was developed in Australia in 1978. Watch some of the video 's on youtube of people hearing for the first time, it's pretty heady stuff.
How's this any different than the tele-coils current cell phones use?
Hearing Aid : a small sound amplifier that you put inside the ear cannal.
Cochlear Implant : An actual cybernetic ear. Think "Ghost in the Shell" and "Matrix" level of cybernetics. Except that it's been years since the implant and the external computer don't use an actual through-skin plug, but communicate and power wirelessly through the skin.
Also minor difference :
The thing you point out seem to use some propretary wireless technology for the sound.
The cochlear implant I've seen during my studies tended to use standards for alternative audio inputs
(back then : audio jack on the external computer. Since then there has been also bluetooth enabled variants.
After reading TFA: this implant introduces a new audio standard over Bluetooth Lower Energy)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
(First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
Addendum:
After looking in-deep the difference is even more minor :
- instead of using some older protocole that have been available on older Bluetooth protocols, like A2DP or SDP.
- this specific implants simply introduce a new audio protocol over Bluetooth Low Energy (a.k.a. "Bluetooth Smart") so they don't require pairing and a slightly lower energy
Which happens to have been available, but not widely documented, on recent iPhones.
And that's it.
That the "big break-through" Apple is putting this PR stunt around.
Yay.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
(my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor)
Addendum :
actually it's even more minor.
Apple has simply introduced a new audio protocol (in addition to A2DP, SDP) and this new one works over Bluetooth Low Energy/Bluetooth Smart.
(And has been available but poorly advertised on recent iphones)
and that's it.
meh.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
i just saw it on cnn.
Medel, Cochlear, Advanced Bionics - all do cochlear implants, and all have offered Bluetooth connectivity for several years. Nothing new here, other than "OMG Apple!"
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
After looking in-deep the difference is even more minor
I guess Google and Android must really suck if they can't bothered to do something so "minor".
Or possibly they hate the disabled? Given the difference between accessibility support the iOS and Android SDK offer that may well be a possibility.
Still, it's quite cold of Google to not do something so minor even if they do despise the deaf.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, youâ(TM)ve got it backwards. The entire point of the App Store and the software in it is to make the experience using the hardware great and to make paying Apple $600 for another bit of hardware more compelling.
If the goal of the hardware was to get you to buy software they wouldnâ(TM)t give shot tons of (ad free) Apple software away for free with it, and theyâ(TM)d sell the hardware as a loss leader. If that was their goal, their entire method of doing business would be backwards.
In Larry Niven's novel the only difference to this is that Siri is called Millie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'd buy that.
I hope that Apple uses some discretion in choosing those manufacturers. The hearing aid industry is rife with ripoffs. Outrageous prices with no justification. High pressure sales techniques used against vulnerable seniors. There's a lot of talk recently about pharmaceutical ripoffs but this one has been going on for so long that it's forgotten.
Find a respectable manufacturer, Apple, if there is one.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Right, that's going to happen.
Can you imagine the outcry if anyone tried to do this? Sure, you can have this hearing aid for free but you cannot mute the advertisements. So, people just won't get the free device, and those that already have it will get rid of it. Not only will people not tolerate this tactic but any technology vendor that tries this will be burning bridges for any future products.
I'd expect the government to get involved too, look at the CALM Act as an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Apple...
False.. There is no conspiracy against cochlear implants, the Jews were not behind 9/11 and the "illumination" does not exists, It's rare for deaf parents to give their children cochlear implants because the technology has too many flaws and results vary wildly. Also, deaf parents are surrounded by cochlear implant patients who were implanted young, raised in a spoken language, and starve for sign language. It is tiring and a big turn-off.
I think you missed the part where Google has no public timeline for this.
Apple earns its billions from hardware sales. You're thinking of a different megacorp that injects advertisements into everything as it's primary revenue source.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Quote from the summary: "For those who reach a point where hearing aids no longer help, this is the only solution"
Seriously, if it wasn't invasive surgery, I'd consider an implant.
My lovely wife's thinking process is somehow hardwired to her vocal chords. And my young daughter thinks talking is the most amazing discovery of mankind. Then there's my employer, who saves money by putting 30+ people in a giant open office.
I'd LOVE to be able to turn down the volume of the whole motherfucking world. No matter how much noise you create, I could always turn down the volume.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Since the article went up? Well the pro-Apple spin was already there, without reason IMO. Cochlear implants aren't exactly rocket science anymore - it is as the blurb itself states a more or less standard treatment for severe hearing loss. Simplified it consists of a flexible electrode array plus electronics that converts audio into pulsing of those electrodes creating a crude approximation of the original sound.
The article essentially claims that skipping the normal, existing Bluetooth protocols going instead for a proprietary one is an advantage. We on this website should have at least some level of understanding of technical claims especially when it comes from what is an advertisement in disguise.
Does this Apple "technology" (read: proprietary protocol) provide something new? Nope. It may be better in some ways than previous solutions but it doesn't literally put sound into someones head - it streams audio using a proprietary Bluetooth protocol to a Cochlear sound processor that tries to create the right pulse pattern to be audible. If that is allowed to stand uncorrected any audio source should be called as streaming voices into peoples heads. Obviously bullshit.
The "article" talks about streaming high quality audio using Bluetooth LE - which is freaking funny given that cochlear implants can't reproduce high quality sound in the first place due to limited number of electrodes, the type of processing needed and the fact that it's generally only used in people with severe hearing loss in the first place. That's obviously bullshit.
So what this "innovation" actually is about is someone thinking that having direct Bluetooth connection to a cochlear implant (more correctly to the audio processing unit that is connected to the actual implant). Pretty obvious really. Normal hearing aids have been available with standard Bluetooth for a while now. Some people don't want to use the existing solution (that have existed at least for 9 years) for cochlear implants as it includes a around-the-neck inductive loop with a Bluetooth unit. Sure, style matters. But battery life times matter too and the neck loop provides a better solution given that it have its own battery. And it is standards compliant in the first place.
What we was served was some crap from someone that likes to wank while reading about Apple, really read the "article" again. I don't eat crap and the (idiotic) anti-Apple spin is better than the original content in the first place.
I don't know many implantees who 'starve for sign language.' In fact, most of us are extremely grateful we have the ability to communicate via speech again.
Results actually vary because of a few reasons:
1) programming implant maps requires a decent audiologist, which is actually rarer than it seems. I had to find a quality audiologist who was willing to work with me
2) mapping requires feedback, some people are just unwilling to put in any work.
3) parents don't implant their children young enough for them to develop auditory pathways properly.
I guess Google and Android must really suck if they can't bothered to do something so "minor".
Virtually all android phone support classical Bluetooth (As in Bluetooth 2 in the first ever HTC G1, all the way to the non-Smart Bluetooth 4) and sending audio over it (be it the older, lower quality SDP or the more modern with better [over kill for the sound quality of a cochlear implant] A2DP).
These are already been able to communicate the various bluetooth solutions (implants and even hearing aids) that have popped up into the market the last few year.
Google doesn't need to bother, it already works.
Virtual any not too old phone support an analog output (the latest lightning-port-only/"revolutionnary"-no-audio-jack iPhone being the obvious exception) and could be plugged in the audio jack of implants 15 years ago.
All that Apple did, was slap a newer protocol working over a slightly different lower-power protocole (Bluetooth Smart / Low Energy). And even forgetting to tell about when they started selling their phones. That's it. That's the "huge revolution / leap forward" that TFA is talking about. "Let's use BT LE for audio instead of regular BT as everybody else".)
This is the "meh-est" of all Apple's "revolutions".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Directly getting access to all sounds of an iPhone opens a new world for these users.
No, it doesn't open anything *new*.
15 years ago, when I was still student in a medicine faculty, patients could plug their phones into the AUX-in port of their system.
(The external sound processor. Not the actual implant. Yes, backthen, there where still implant with physical connection "ghost in the shell"/"matrix" style. But it's not that plug I'm refering to, I'm referring to the audio-in on the piece that itselfs plugs into the implant / or communicates and powers wireless the implant through the skin)
This was an important feature even 15 years ago : the quality of sound you could pass then through the implant wasn't stellar.
Patients couldn't easily distinguishes voices over a noisy background (dual implants - one per ear - of later generations (more distinct channels and thus better spectral resolution) had improved that later)
Patients couldn't also easily hear a voice produced by the tiny speaker of a phone and then picked up by the mic of the external sound processor. So having an analog AUX-in to plug directly into phone was an essential feature even 15 years.
i.e.: even 15 years ago, patients were able to place calls simply by plugging their phones into their implant (well not the actual implant, the external processor).
If anything, latest Apple phone are the "disabled-hating" device because they drop this useful analog jack.
Since the last couple of years, some bluetooth audio capabilities also started appearing.
So you could even use phones wirelessly.
The only new "revolution" of Apple is using a slightly lower-power protocole (Bluetooth LE/Smart versus classic Bluetooth).
And that's it.
Big "meh".
The alternative is proprietary remote-control devices made by the hearing aid companies, which means that you pay the price of an iPhone, but get the functionality of a airco remote.
Maybe this has changed in the recent years. But back when I was following the tech, outside of the complex calibration that where done by a technician using a full blown computer, patients didn't need that much controling of the implants.
Power on/off, battery indicator, AUX-in, switch to select the sound source. And that's it.
These device where designed to be as simple to operate as possible. And could be operated by children.
(With later models probably adding a bluetooth button or two for switching and pairing.)
But back then I've never heard of overly complex administration/controlling that required patients to have huge button-overloaded remote controls.
(But maybe time have changed, and current patients want to have "audio profiles" in their filters ?
Rock music, classical music, etc. like some speakers ?
In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No actually its quite excellent. Your old body will soon pass into oblivion and we snowflakes (read the meek) shall inherit the earth. Suck it.
All that Apple did, was slap a newer protocol working over a slightly different lower-power protocole (Bluetooth Smart / Low Energy)
Like I said, I guess Google must really suck or hate deaf people if it can't even be bothered to do something you claim is so simplistic it's hardly worth mentioning.
But then I guess that's not a surprise since Android users never did care about quality of life for anyone, much less the disabled.
P.S. You also must not be very technical if you think there is not a large difference in both UX and energy consumption between BT and BTLE. But fuck people who have to power microscopically sized implants, right?
It will never fail to amaze me how the need to support Android (or hate on Apple) is so powerful for some it can literally hurt other people and the fanboi/hater will not care. Sick dude.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why? Because it'll only be a few short months before Ads are beamed directly into your head. I'm sure being able to turn off Ads will be a premium feature.
On top of that, since nefarious alphabet agencies have access to our devices. How about a little social programming via very quiet voices talking in your ear while you sleep? Subliminal messaging?
What you say here are among the reasons cochlear implants are rejected by so many deaf parents. The results are improved but failures still exist when parents eliminate the reasons you mention. Bear in mind that the paranoid poster I replied to are talking about the implantation of prelingual deaf children, not late deafened adults. I just think that it is perplexing how some people are so caught up in the idea that cochlear implants are a miracle that they fail to observe other issues. The fact that most deaf people do not qualify for cochlear implants because they hear too well is telling. Guess it is some basic fear of deafness working in the background here.
Which european country?
Why is this a troll? I'm just pointing out that considering both cable TV and the internet were both ad free at some point (especially cable since it's selling point was specifically that) advertisement managed to worm it's way into both technologies. Considering the track record it's not too much of a stretch to assume that someone somewhere is going to figure out how to advertise to these and whether or not the courts rule it as an invasion of privacy or not someone will probably still attempt it at some point.
Actually I own 2 apple products and think they do an amazing job with their security on their mobile devices, though win10 > Mac (I prefer something that cab play video games). That aside I do believe any new technology can and will be abused and so far the track record for anything media related is to abuse them with advertisements. I very much expect once augmented and mixed reality displays go main stream were going to end up the same way with augmented digital billboards and the like.
Yep exactly. They'll offer this service as a system to benefit public health etc, get it out there, but in the fine print using the technology allows them to play ads. More specifically they're now trying to find ways of bypassing "I don't want to fucking look at this or hear it so I turn it down or look away".
Like they'll let you have volume control etc but disabled muting the video etc while an ad is playing, and you can't even block your ears.
Bullshit.
Prove it, or STFU.
Apple earns its billions from hardware sales. You're thinking of a different megacorp that injects advertisements into everything as it's primary revenue source.
Precisely!
I wondered how long it would take someone to come up with some anti-Apple spin to this.
Answer: 9 minutes.
On this site, I'm surprised it wasn't more like 9 milliseconds.
^ found the shill
Found the COWARD.,
You mean like http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/e... ?
It's a good way to prevent commuters from resting their heads against the windows but you think no company would try to find ways to get more ads?
You know what they'll do? Can't literally prevent muting it, but they make it so using the menu to get to the mute, stops your video or restarts it or some crap, to discourage people from stopping the ads from playing.
Obviously you run ads to be so defensive about it, run long now.
Scare-mongering fake news article produced by the deaf lobby. (Yes there is a big cabal of rich deaf people, who promote deafness worldwide as a positive thing and oppose treatments. They even hire Mengele-style madmen doctors to sort their sperm and eggs, so that only 100% guaranteed deaf kids will be produced.)
Yes. The "Glory of Deafness" crowd.
Talk about a "Sweet Lemons" effect...
God (and/or Evolution) wouldn't have stuck those ugly-ass sound-horns on the side of our (and nearly every other specie's) head if he didn't intend them to WORK.
Glory of Deafness, indeed!
You mean like http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/e... ?
It's a good way to prevent commuters from resting their heads against the windows but you think no company would try to find ways to get more ads?
You know what they'll do? Can't literally prevent muting it, but they make it so using the menu to get to the mute, stops your video or restarts it or some crap, to discourage people from stopping the ads from playing.
Obviously you run ads to be so defensive about it, run long now.
I agree that's pretty evil; but I also submit that it has nothing to do with beaming signals into cochlear implants.
Nice try, though.
Run ALONG now.
if it can't even be bothered to do something you claim is so simplistic it's hardly worth mentioning.
...which is probably going to start to pop-up on most other phones, now that LEA is starting to get attention, its specs get published, and most phone actually move to hardware equipped with BTLE (...there might still be some smartphones without the "Smart") and enable BTLE in their stack (there are smartphone with chips that support BTLE, but not yet the OS).
My bet is first on the various community edition/3rd party patches of full blown GNU/Linux OS (like SailfishOS ?)
Then on Google's flasgship products.
Then on 3rd party android firmwares (LineageOS etc.) - some even managing to use later kernels available from the chipset manufacturers to get most recent drivers.
As for the carrier provided phone ? Forget about it, you'll be lucky to get *any update*, just switch to Lineage already.
But then I guess that's not a surprise since Android users never did care about quality of life for anyone, much less the disabled.
Are you trying to insinuate that I hate people ? Or that I could be an Android user ? (I'm not)
Or are you insinuating that Apple is the only one to design OS that take disabled into account ?
(Note: One of the founders of Jolla - makers of SailfishOS - is disabled himself. Among others, Sailfish is designed to be operated single handed)
P.S. You also must not be very technical if you think there is not a large difference in both UX and energy consumption between BT and BTLE.
I'll have bad news for you. The fact that BTLE consume a little bit less energy than vanilla BT doesn't come only from the signal it self, but the way communication is organized.
BTLE comes from different protocols which where swallowed by BT, those protocols where targeted to ultra low power sensors.
A significant part of the energy enconomy comes from the fact that those sensors communicate in short occasional bursts. They don't need to be fully powered all the time, only for the short period of time when they emit their readings. Also the whole "opening a channel to transmit data" is much simpler, meaning it's much faster, meaning the sensor needs to spend less time in high power mode.
LEA, by streaming audio (i.e.: a constant stream) defeat this latter advantage.
In other words, don't expect to see as much power saving between A2DP and LEA as you could between a hearth beat-rate monitor on BT classic and BTLE.
And that's just for the audio streaming it self.
But fuck people who have to power microscopically sized implants, right?
The implant is only a tiny part of the system.
The implant IS NOT the part that connects to the phone.
The implant is an array of electrode that follows the swirl of the inner ear (lat.: cochlea) and is capable of independently stimulate different region of the array of nerves (corresponding to different frequency bands). The more electrodes the better (up to the point where you can't precisely enough stimulate a small region compared to their neighbors, due to the distance between the electrode and the array of nerves (the spectral resolution of this isn't as good as natural hearing).
It's small chip either has a proprietary plug going through the skin (until sometime before my studies) or (anything since then) has a coil under the skin which can receive signal and power wirelessly.
This implant doesn't even process audio signal.
Then you have the audio processor it self.
It's either a small audio-player like box clipped on the belt (popular with kids because it's easier to manipulate, also has way more battery), or an around-the-ear device (similar to a hearing aid, but without an earphone in the ear cannal).
This device communicate with the implant with a coil that sticks magnetically above the implant's coil, or simply with a cable to the through-skin plug for older generation im
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Just plug the same ol' 3.5 mm plug into the same ol' 3.5 mm jack on the INCLUDED Lighting to 3.5 mm adapter, and off you go!
Okay, when I point out that Apple is receiving a Ticket Tape Parade for the "revolution" of saving a few percent battery on something which has been done for the past 15 years already, I'm derided as HATER (and life time member of Guild of Android Users Misanthropes ?)
But when you point that now any user of analog links now needs to fumble with a tiny easy to use adapter, it's not something problematic ?
Double standard ?
In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful
Well aren't you special? Deciding what's "useful" to someone who has to LIVE THEIR LIFE with a Cochlear Implant?
I'm not the one deciding. Laws of physics and biochemistry are deciding.
Okay, maybe you really don't have an idea how a cochlear implant works.
It's a tiny electrode array that you insert nearby the "swirl" of the innear ear (lat.: cochlea), the small snail shaped part.
This it the part where the accoustic nerves (the accoustic part of the Cranial Nerve VIII - Vestibulo-cochlear) arrives.
Due to how the cochlea works, each part of this nerve is stimulated by a signal due to a different frequency (the cochlear is some sort of mechanical fourier transformer).
Thus each channel of the electrode array - which stimulates a different part of the nerves - stimulates according to a different band of sound frequency.
There is no such thing yet as electrodes nano-bonded to the nerves themselve. No "cyber synapses" yet.
The electrodes are simply stimulating the nerve electrically from a distance.
There an upper physico-chemical limit on how precisely you can stimulate the nerve.
An electrode array can have up to some number of channels (forgot the exact current number with current tech. But it won't be much above 7, because to revolutionnary tech has enabled a jump of several order of magnitude).
You can technically put more channels/electrodes in the array, but the end effect will be the same as there will be cross talk between the channels (unable to stimulate precisely enough), so the end result (number of distinct audio frequency bands) will be the same.
In other words : the frequency resolution of cochlear implant sucks, and is going to sucks for the near future until some *actual* revolution in modern cybernetics (e.g.: all this neuron-to-silicon synapse things done in labs that you sometime hear on /. Maybe some day they'll be usable on implant).
Until then it's going to be really hard to be an audiophile with a cochlear implant.
Audio profile ("rock", "classical" and other effect that you've seen on cheap sound systems) are "vaguely useful" in my opinion, not only because they seem to (in my opinion) be a cheap gimmick to add a bullet point on an audio equipment, but mainly because objectively the perceived audio on a impant is a bit limited.
There's no much gain in putting a 32-band effect equalizer on something which is basically a 5-7 band audio transmission.
(Something, which if you really want it, can be covered with separated bass/mid/trebble pots. Not "something which looks like an airco remote"
BTW, I've never seen such huge remotes being used on implants. But as I said I haven't been following latest development)
That's why I'm say "vaguely useful" regarding audio-system-like profiles.
It's not that I'm judging that deaf people are unworthy of the joys of enabling a "jazz music" audio profile like other people on their sound system.
It's that, given the physical constraints of an implant and the type of sound perceived from it, I thing the relevance is quite limited.
It's much more useful for the quality of life of deaf people to improve the quality of automatic noise filters (and also decrease the overall price of implants).
Hence my position regar
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You've been able to pipe sound into implants via wire for a long time. The Nucleus 6 (which my son has) added the capability to do wireless -- but it's a proprietary protocol, requiring you to buy a $300 adapter (which I don't have) to use it w/ standard Bluetooth. Obviously, this eliminates the need for the adapter, but I'm curious if anyone can tell me how else it improves the user experience over using the adapter?
You mean, other than the voice Apple already implanted, which goes something like this:
"You are validated by your possessions. Apple is cool. If you own some Apple tech, you can be cool too, or at least cooler. Think different, just so long as you think with Apple. Microsoft is for noobs, Apple is for jazz lovers, pot smokers and animal rights!"