Most recent update from one of he trial participants:
Uncle Jeff recently went back to Kansas this week for what he calls "lab rat session 4." Here is what he had to say:
Well, not a whole lot to say from this testing session other than my hearing continues to improve and is almost back to where it was before the surgery. I have, in addition, picked up a couple new frequencies that I didn't have before. I still don't have an increase in word comprehension.
The visit with Dr. Staecker was more enlightening than before. We discussed my loss of sense of taste and I finally got an answer that suggests that it could take a year and a half for the nerves to heal and get it back. There are now seven of us that have had the surgery. When evaluating things so far, it seems as though there is no clear indication yet as to when and if the procedure will work as planned. As he stated to me, we can't see what is going on with the humans like we did with the animals as we cannot dissect the ear.
It would appear from these discussions and he concurred that do to my setbacks with the blood on the ear drum, that the whole procedure will take longer than the seven month study to see if the nerve will take root. The nerve taking root in the Cochlear bone seems to be the key to this.
My analysis of the testing at this point is that it will take some time before we can evaluate real progress in the nerve rooting and hopefully speech comprehension improvement as a result of it.
It is too early to adjust the hearing aids, that much I have found out. I think that my brain has to re-learn speech recognition even just returning to pre-surgical levels of sound. The new frequencies aren't enough to change things.
This report is longer than previous ones due to seeing the forums where people were speculating on this. I want to be clear and concise here that the difference between human and animal test subjects and results is do to the various kinds of hearing loss that the humans have versus the induced hearing loss that the animals had, which would be more consistent and therefore easier to calculate from. Too few test subjects and too many variables at this point to conclude much.