AllDeaf.com forum post.... I'm curious about it

When I first decided to get the CI, I started browsing for forums to talk in, and came across Alldeaf.com. After one week, I stopped going on it because half the people seemed somewhat rude and many of them also seem to gang up on the belief that the Nucleus 5 is the best CI. Of course, there are many of us, mainly AB users/choosers that disagree, and you can't get much word in edgewise.

Anyhow, I went back on today and noticed this post from someone who is refusing to talk about who "he" is. Not about who he is though, as much as it what he had to say. And I'm curious how much truth there is to it all and if should play that much of a role in choosing a CI. He mentioned it all in relation to the chart comparing the AB vs. Cochlear:


"These details are only useful if you know what they mean.

1. The temporal resolution numbers really aren't important, as it has already been shown that most CI users are unable to discriminate pitch differences for rates above 300 pulses per second per channel. The total stimulation rates as listed there for both devices are more than capable of delivering this.

2. The spectral resolution numbers are also overexaggerated. Even for systems with as many as 22 electrode pairs/channels most users are incapable of utilising more than 4 - 8 channels for speech recognition. Yes more channels in theory allows for better pitch perception, but in practice this is relevant only to puretones and does not translate to complex sounds because of current interactions between electrodes.

3. An expanded input dynamic range is useful for quiet situations, but in noise it just means you hear more noise, so this could be a positive or a negative depending upon the situation you're in. Current studies suggest an input dynamic range of 40 is better than one of 30, but there is no evidence to suggest an IDR of > 45 offers any further benefit.

4. pitch percepts - the emphasis being very much on potential. Pitch perception research suggests that CI users are unable to reliably rank the direction of a pitch change for a pair of notes 1/4 of an octave apart. Current speech processing strategies are very poor at providing pitch information, as they must work within the limitations of electrical stimulation in fluid-filled environment, the emphasis naturally being on speech as that is their main purpose.

5. Sound coding strategies are generally proprietary and largely device-specific. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the advanced bionics strategies are superior to anything else on the market."

I would appreciate some insights from those that have beyond researched CI stats themselves.