Can Technology Resolve Hearing Impairments?

The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn t being said - Peter Drucker Introduction
When discussing how technology can be applied to the healthcare system, more specifically in the auditory field, one must first comprehend who is applicable. In this commentary, this cohort refers to anyone who lives with lifelong hearing impairments that cannot be managed with hearing aids as treatment so they require further speculation and analysis. In comparison to those who use hearing aids. They already retain a small amount of hearing which permits them to deal with their condition with relative ease. One also must comprehend how the term resolve is applied within this context. The term alludes to the healing or subsiding of a condition.

This helps one greatly in understanding how successful or effective a certain branch of technology is and what long term implications may beexperienced by the patient in question. By assessing how technology affects a person, the medical world can determine whether certain forms of treatment should be invested in and developed further to increase effectivenessand if others should be disregarded completely due to their inadequacy. The consideration of the social and human consequences surrounding the usage of technology for the community of people living with hearing impairments should be prominent within this discussion. Societal attitudes towards this cohort play an immensely significant role in the usage of technology if that may be through the abundance of intimate methods of resolving (eg. cochlear implants, ) or more externally focused methods of tackling the impairments (eg. the abundance of texting as a form of communication)- society holds a key position in how hearing impairments are regarded within both the medical and social world. Therefore, looking at how technology can resolve those living with hearing impairments one must keep the social, practical and medical implications in mind and the duration of its impacts on the life of a person living with a hearing impairment.

The Cochlear Implant

One notable piece of technology used in the medical field to help those with profound hearing loss or complete deafness is the Cochlear Implant. This is deemed an intimate method. To fully understand its benefits as a piece of technology, understanding how sound is processed within the ear and the significance of the cochlear is vital. The cochlea is a bone that serves as a mechanism within the inner ear to convert sound waves into electrical signals, these signals travel to the brain via the auditory nerve to be interpreted by the primary auditory complex within the temporal lobe. For this conversion to be carried out-the cochlea is lined with hair cells that detect sound wavesfollowing sound frequencies and thus trigger electrical signals (Krogmann, R.J. and Yasir Al Khalili, 2022).

Those with hearing loss retain faulty or immensely damaged hair cells (for reasons including natural ageing, inheritance, prolonged exposure to harmful loud sounds etc). This means the necessary conversion of sound waves is preventedand thus the temporal lobe of the brain can no longer interpret external noises. The role of the Cochlear Implant is to bypass this conversation stage. The attached microphone takes inexternal noises and sends them to the processor which in turn interprets the sound data and sends it into two dozen channels - each corresponding to a different frequency of sound. For each channel, an electrode zaps a certain pointin the cochlear (this acts as a replacement of hair cells) and forms electrical signals which are sent efficiently to the brain for interpretation the sound heard is purely the combination of signals sent (FDA centre, 2022). As beneficial as immediate hearing seems for the affected person a myriad of limitations are carried by the device inquestion. These implants are purely designed to amplify speech and render it interpretable, solving hearing impairments to an extent. However it is impossible for a device to identically emulate the functioning of the cochlear as a result, said implants retain both practical and medical complications.

The fact that the natural cochlea retains thousands of hair cells, in comparison to the mere two dozen channels of the implant means that sound is immensely different and many individuals cannot interpret tonal languages like Chinese and differentiate voices in a crowd (WebMD, 2010). This means individuals must train their minds to process sounds and essentially hear . This training may be deemed extensive and impractical for those who live fast-paced, busy lives however, it is a necessity to maximisethe potential these devices offer for those with hearing impairments. Therefore, when deciding whether to acquire an implant the potential inhibiting factors but be taken into consideration and balanced against the advantages hearing poses for an individual in question. Some may argue that the implant s advantages in the long term hold far greater weight than that of the short term inconvenience of training forming the consensus that renders the implant a resolve due to its medically advantageousnature.

This argument is supported further by the notion that rehabilitation after receiving the implant is largely supported by organizations such as Hearing Link and Mayo Clinic- which provides training advice and emotional empowerment to those who undergo the said process. This not only encourages individuals to learn to train their hearing but increases a sense of personal involvement and unity within communities of those with and without hearingimpairments (Hearing Link Services, 2016). Consequently, leading to an easier, more accessible approach to implant rehabilitation and thus increases the devices advantageous nature. With the addition of social involvement, paired withthe benefits of the implant, those who undergo the operation not only resolve their impairments medically but also gain a sense of emancipation and empowerment.

Alternative forms of technology

That being said, some within the community of affected individuals argue that the emphasis placed on intimate methods of resolve is unnecessary and alienating. The notion that those who suffer from hearing impairments must change to fit an expectation fabricated by society is highly discriminatory and stigmatises said impairments. This encourages social hostility towards the affected cohort and fails to address the issue of intolerance towards certain groupings within society. Alternative uses of technology could be utilised to increase communication between thosewith hearing impairments and their surroundings without changing the state of the person in question. While these preferences do not resolvehearing impairments, they attempt to resolve the social barriers created by society.

A prime use of technology that permits communication while maintaining the original state of an individual is texting. The use of texting not only permits different cohorts of people to maintain connection, placed so highly within the nature of man, but allows those with hearing impairments to express themselves in an inclusive, accessible way- maintaining social equality and cohesion. A source stated that she found texting brilliant becauseshe could communicate without the pressure her impairment placed upon her she was content with her silence and didn t want to change to fit the status quo (Knill. R., 2020). As much as this means of communication is helpful for younger populations, many older cohorts still want to retain that sense of social inclusion, however, lack theknowledge needed to partake in the latter. To tackle this issue and retain inclusion for all, organisations such as Age UK offer sessions for those who are uncomfortable with the usage of technology. This allows them to access another level of communication in their favour. Technology can be utilised by all, regardless of age or ability, but what needs to be addressed is the reachability for cohorts to gain the necessary knowledge needed to utilise these forms of technology to their advantage. Therefore, this form of technology does not resolve the affected medically but resolves social and communicative barriers.

Along with the use of texting, other external elements that reside within one s life can be utilised to aid one s interpretation and understanding of the outside world. The use of subtitles not only allows those with hearing impairments to fully comprehend what they are watching but they are given a choice. This autonomy of choosing to use the facilities given by others to accommodate their needs, rather than vice versa. The usage of Visual Alert Systems permits users to continue with their lives, resolving the issues posed by their impairments. Said devices indicate scenarios such as the ringing of a doorbell and the event of a fire (Pilling, D. and Barrett, P., 2007). These devices license users to continue living without the complications posed by their impairment thus permitting the continuation of their independence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, technology holds a variety of uses to resolve the complications posed by hearing impairments. This spans from intimate means of aid, like Cochlear Implants to external resources like Visual Alert Systems and texting. They all pose their advantages and limitations to the user, if that may be medically, socially or practically. It is the choice of the user in regards to what form of help best suits their needs and lifestyle. This can be determined by its accessibility, its long term impacts and one s own comfort. However, as mentioned, it must be appreciated that societal intervention shapes the attitudes toward those with hearing impairments and their interaction with technology as a consequence. If society were to support and invest in technology that beneficially impacts thoseaffected by hearing impairments they can take collective, cohesive steps towards a more impactful and efficient means of helping those with hearing impairments creating a sustainable future for years to come.