If regenerative hearing treatments targets the cochlear side and the Dr. Shore device targets jaw and similar instigated tinnitus then this will be a winner without a doubt.
Agree.
Wonder what excuse she will use next year and then next and so on.
The U of M device:
Being in a quiet period, non complete press and public released communication question answering exposure is not so uncommon even with a non drug clinical application, regardless of not being a public company. Patent filing applications may also be under review. They may be considering longer term safety, but have known the below for a long time which is a plus:
Research indicate that fusiform apical dendrites receive excitatory inputs from parallel fibers and inhibitory inputs from midbrain auditory nuclei and neighboring cartwheel and stellate cells (Rubio and Wenthold, 1999). On the other hand, the cell body receives inhibitory inputs from nearby cartwheel cells, vertical cells, ventral cochlear nucleus, and midbrain auditory nuclei (Zhang and Oertel, 1994).
Somatosensory input from one particular source or modality could reduce the ability of inputs from another source to influence the firing rate of a CWC. Activation of as few as three PF synapses is sufficient to significantly elevate spontaneous CWC firing rates (Roberts and Trussell, 2010), suggesting that activity of only a small fraction of the total population of PF inputs to a CWC would be required to elevate firing rates to levels that would evoke endocannabinoid release.
-------------------------------------------
Regulation of medical drugs and devices involves competing goals of assuring safety and efficacy while providing rapid movement of innovative therapies through the investigative and regulatory processes as quickly as possible. The United States and the European Union approach these challenges in different ways. This involves a lot when there's a need to be regulated. Should innovative therapies be regulated for devices - I say that they should when directed use is above the shoulders or heart. Simulation for the lower spine with back injury is quite effective along with exercises after.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other thoughts, but there are several more:
U of M will contract with a bio-medical engineering firm that will work closely with U of M in-house.
Susan Shore has stated that the problem with jaw and neck needs to be fixed for lasting results. Any infection component is important to solve. Example: Those that smoke with TMJ can cause spiking as bacteria can enter gum pockets that move position of teeth and jaw - and from this, salvia gland problems can develop.
This device is bio-medical and it's bio engineering would be of focus of PF synapses and CWC firing rates. Other devices such as TENS does not provide successful bio medical simulation to the jaw. Electric razor and electric tooth brush, don't usually upset cranial nerves with tinnitus unless also placed to the ear. The other device method - the tongue company caused vibrations that appear to upset nerves within the mouth - my take. This was a posted concern that I had some time ago. Also long steady periods of vibration noise within mouth is not good with tinnitus.
MIT has been involved with device design for many years and what they found was that their bio-med technology had concerns from working computer input modeling. This may have to do with cranial nerves wearing down, becoming tired to accept signals. Problems were also raised in computer models for both possible early and midterm therapy periods with over accepted signals and these would be the trigeminal, facial nerve and the vagus nerve. Blood flow runs in arteries and veins in the neck. For those with circulation, blood pressure/pulse, artery and vein disease or injury and atherosclerosis, there may be concern with simulation due to blood clotting. Also with nerves and salvia glands of mouth.
All in all, I think that the U of M device will be very helpful for many.