'Another possibility has to do with what researchers refer to as "cognitive load" — essentially, that the effort of constantly straining to understand stresses the brain. This one makes intuitive sense'.
This week we will discuss the final BRAIN IMPLANT in this process of trying to use MY BRAIN to create this UNIFIED CIRCUITRY global banking 1% call ------
INTEGRATING BRAIN LOBES INTO ONE MACHINE.
What I experienced these months since JAN 2019 when I was made aware of all these BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS through PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE and FEEDBACK hidden for a dozens years and then TURNED ON-----in JAN 2019.
First, we want to make clear----there has been NO INTEGRATION of these BRAIN IMPLANTS. What I experienced was the use of COCHLEAR IMPLANTS and SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING through that COCHLEAR IMPLANT to create ILLUSION of what is real information and what is manipulated information.
'5 Ways To Reduce Cognitive Load In eLearning
5 ways to reduce cognitive load in eLearning based on the findings of Mayer and Moreno. Present some information via the visual channel and some via the verbal channel If all of the content is processed visually i.e. via text, pictures or animations, the visual channel can become overloaded'.
RETINAL IMPLANTS intercepting what I saw through my eyes----they did not change my perception of what I saw. The NOSE IMPLANT intercepting what I smelled through my nose did not change my perception of what I smelled. The COCHLEAR IMPLANT with microphones connected to the AUDITORY NERVE did place the GREATEST BURDEN for me of knowing what were MY THOUGHTS and what were messages being PIPED IN THROUGH COCHLEAR DEVICE.
'Another possibility has to do with what researchers refer to as "cognitive load" — essentially, that the effort of constantly straining to understand stresses the brain. This one makes intuitive sense'.
We read in science research journals a few decades ago these global banking 1% players wanted to know ----IS THE BRAIN CAPACITY FOR INFORMATION UNLIMITED----or WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF INFORMATION THE BRAIN CAN HANDLE.
What has been allowed to happen these few decades by far-right global banking CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS/NEO-CONS is the implantation of these BRAIN DEVICES geared to RUNNING 24/7 STREAMING VIDEO AND AUDIO keeping MY BRAIN filled with SPAM/useless information yet FORCING MY BRAIN to a
'COGNITIVE LOAD CAPACITY'
What Is The Cognitive Load Theory?
A Definition For Teachers
by Terry Heick
November 7, 2019
What Is The Cognitive Load Theory? A Definition For Teachers
by Terry Heick
Preface: I’m (very clearly) not a neurologist. While I often have dedicated a lot of thought and research into things I write, sometimes I write about things in order to understand them–or understand them better. This is one of those times. Caveat emptor.
Generally, the Cognitive Load Theory is a theory about learning built on the premise that since the brain can only do so many things at once, we should be intentional about what we ask it to do.
It was developed in 1998 by psychologist John Sweller, and the School of Education at New South Wales University released a paper in August of 2017 that delved into theory. The paper has a great overview–and even stronger list of citations–of the theory. They also, obviously, define and explain it:
‘Cognitive load theory is based on a number of widely accepted theories about how human brains process and store information (Gerjets, Scheiter & Cierniak 2009, p. 44). These assumptions include: that human memory can be divided into working memory and long-term memory; that information is stored in the long-term memory in the form of schemas; and that processing new information results in ‘cognitive load’ on working memory which can affect learning outcomes (Anderson 1977; Atkinson & Shiffrin 1968; Baddeley 1983).’
Put another way, the Cognitive Load Theory says that because short-term memory is limited, learning experiences should be designed to reduce working memory ‘load’ in order to promote schema acquisition.
Since both can’t be done well at the same time, teachers can be specific about not just what is being learned (e.g., content knowledge versus procedural knowledge) and the sequence of the learning (e.g., learn about a ‘thing,’ then how that ‘thing’ works, then how to use that ‘thing’ critically and creatively) it is, but also the nature of what’s being learned (e.g., domain-specific knowledge and definitions versus design thinking through knowledge and definitions).
For example, if you asked a student to critically examine various economic systems (higher-order thinking) while also defining and ‘making sense of’ what an ‘economic system’ was and how they worked, you’d be overloading short-term memory. Because the student doesn’t yet ‘understand’ economic systems, they would need to consistently access their short-term memory while processing–while ‘learning.’ The concept of ‘economic systems’ is not yet in their long-term memory, so as they ‘create knowledge’ (moving new ‘information’ into existing or emerging schema), their short-term memory becomes cluttered because it is the primary ‘ground zero’ for the learning.
The student could likely still learn under these circumstances, but the instructional design in this scenario is non-optimal–the student would literally be fighting the way their brain works in order to learn.
Or so says the Cognitive Load Theory anyway.
Of course, a teacher doesn’t want students fighting an uphill battle just to acquire new knowledge. We want students to grapple with complexity, but that’s very different than defying neurology.
Another (Slightly Longer) Definition For Cognitive Load Theory
Wikipedia has one of the best (though slightly longer) definitions for the Cognitive Load Theory I’ve seen.
‘Cognitive load theory provides a general framework and has broad implications for instructional design, by allowing instructional designers to control the conditions of learning within an environment or, more generally, within most instructional materials. Specifically, it provides…guidelines that help instructional designers decrease extraneous cognitive load during learning and…refocus the learner’s attention toward germane materials, thereby increasing germane (schema-related) cognitive load.’
The Theory In Sweller’s Own Words: A Psychologist’s Definition
In 1988, Sweller himself wrote that:
‘Cognitive load theory has been designed to provide guidelines intended to assist in the presentation of information in a manner that encourages learner activities that optimize intellectual performance. The theory assumes a limited capacity working memory that includes partially independent subcomponents to deal with auditory/verbal material and visual/2- or 3-dimensional information as well as an effectively unlimited long-term memory, holding schemas that vary in their degree of automation. These structures and functions of human cognitive architecture have been used to design a variety of novel instructional procedures based on the assumption that working memory load should be reduced and schema construction encouraged.”
Ultimately, the Cognitive Load Theory also suggests that ‘knowing things’ is necessary to think critically about those things–or at least is most efficient when that is the case.
This further suggests that two of the primary information processing ‘activities’ here (knowledge acquisition and problem-solving) should be considered separately, oftentimes focusing first on schema, then on problem-solving with and through that schema.
Sweller continues, “It is suggested that a major reason for the ineffectiveness of problem-solving as a learning device, is that the cognitive processes required by the two activities overlap insufficiently, and that conventional problem-solving in the form of means-ends analysis requires a relatively large amount of cognitive processing capacity which is consequently unavailable for schema acquisition.”
Put another way, the reason problem-solving and domain knowledge aren’t directly proportional is because of how the human brain works. Problem-solving takes up crucial ‘brain bandwidth,’ reducing what’s ‘left’ to ‘learn new things.’
Of course, this has significant implications for how teachers might design lessons, units, and assessments, and for how curriculum developers use instructional design elements that brain-based learning.
A Few Thoughts About The Theory
The paper from NSW offers a slightly confusing ‘cognitive load-friendly’ strategy:
‘Cognitive load theory supports explicit models of instruction, because such models tend to accord with how human brains learn most effectively (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006). Explicit instruction involves teachers clearly showing students what to do and how to do it, rather than having students discover or construct information for themselves (see Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2014, pp. 8-12).
I’m honestly not sure what to take away from this bit–maybe that the nature of explicit instruction is ‘Cognitive Load Theory’-friendly because students are less frequently overloading short-term memory…maybe because the teacher is reducing ‘load’ by modeling and explaining and being extremely clear and explicit? In which case, the brain is free to ‘learn’ the specified learning objective?
That sounds great, but by being so narrow and ‘clear,’ it leaves very little room for personalization unless the teacher:
1. Was crystal clear–from the academic standard to the curriculum map to the unit to the lesson objective–what was was being learned and the cognitive level it was being learned at. For example, any academic standard that require the student to evaluate the bias in an author’s position, for example, would itself need to be parsed to separate
2. Had fresh and accurate assessment date evaluating the prior knowledge each student came to that lesson with
3. Designed some way to accommodate a wide variety of existing understandings so that the ‘load’ was reduced per student rather than per standard or content topic
And there’s zero chance of that happening consistently–which suggests education be looked at with fresh and honest eyes of how the brain works, and everything else–from curriculum to classrooms–be designed in response.
Anyhow, there you are. A definition for and brief discussion of the Cognitive Load Theory. There are scores and scores of ‘theories’ worth looking at, but this one stood out to me because it doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like it means, and in a neat and tidy way, kind of frames how all teaching and learning most naturally happen: in small movements, building in small increments of progress until something close to mastery emerges and learners can see what the value of the ‘learned thing’ is, and what the true utility of that knowledge might be.
What Is The Cognitive Load Theory? A Definition For Teachers
Looking at the timeline of when global banking 1% started using BRAIN IMPLANTS first with PAIN ---then with sensory deficits-----a person IMPLANTED back in 1960s----70s with this BRAIN IMPLANT process soaring in 1990s-----2000s-----the constant stimulation keeping the BRAIN ENGAGED------we know is the cause of all this DEMENTIA. Now, the transition from simple electrode electrical stimulation for NERVE PAIN/MUSCLE PAIN seguing into complex SENSORY STIMULATION brought BRAIN ENGAGEMENT to tremendous levels. THE BRAIN works far more in processing VISUAL, AUDITORY, SMELL/TASTE then it does in simple electrical stimulation for PAIN.
FEEDBACK FROM HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS IS --------SHE HAS BEEN HOOKED UP FOR A DOZEN YEARS -----HER BRAIN IS TOAST. EARLY DEMENTIA IS IN MY FUTURE SAY THE BARBER SURGEONS.
'As the population increases, these numbers are expected to rise. To put this into perspective, it’s estimated that one out of every six women and one out of every ten men, living past the age of 55 will develop dementia'.
My LAWSUIT against illegal surveillance and 24/7 streaming video and PORN-----will look at this effect on MY BRAIN-----being filled with SPAM -----running my brain constantly. WEAR AND TEAR-------BREAKDOWN OF HEALTHY BRAIN TISSUE----SENSORY TISSUE can cause DEMENTIA.
'Origin and Evolution of Deep Brain Stimulation
Brain stimulation for pain control, used as early as 1950 with good effects through temporary electrodes implanted into brain regions, after a first experimental phase, found its explanation in the “gate control theory” developed by Melzach and Wall in 1962 (Rezai and Lozano, 2002). These previous studies were the basis that led to the development of new techniques of neurostimulation: transcranial magnetic stimulation, cortical brain stimulation, and deep brain stimulation (DBS)'.
Think about a family member who may have been counseled to participate in these BRAIN STIMULATION for PAIN et al and how long that person was subjected to a point of COGNITIVE LOAD CAPACITY
I am a HIGHLY COGNITIVE person-------being HIT with 7 IMPLANTS all keeping my brain active with no REAL INFORMATION.
Supposedly, I will soon be in need of these kinds of CLINICAL CARE CONDITIONS
'Alzheimer’s Is Accelerating Across the U.S.
As populations age, rates soar
by Cheryl Bond-Nelms, AARP, November 17, 2017
The Alzheimer’s Association says, “Someone in the United States develops Alzheimer's dementia every 66 seconds.”
Degenerative brain disease and dementia are on the rise across all 50 U.S. states, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. As the rate of Alzheimer’s continues to escalate, more financial stress will be placed on health care programs. The trend will also increase the need for caregivers nationwide'.
Alzheimer’s Is Accelerating Across the U.S.As populations age, rates soar
by Cheryl Bond-Nelms, AARP, November 17, 2017
The Alzheimer’s Association says, “Someone in the United States develops Alzheimer's dementia every 66 seconds.”
Degenerative brain disease and dementia are on the rise across all 50 U.S. states, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. As the rate of Alzheimer’s continues to escalate, more financial stress will be placed on health care programs. The trend will also increase the need for caregivers nationwide.
An estimated 5.5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. The statistics are broken down by age and ethnicity and are listed as follows on their site.
- One in 10 people age 65 and older (10 percent) has Alzheimer's dementia.
- Almost two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer's are women.
- African Americans are about twice as likely to have Alzheimer's or other dementia as whites.
- Hispanics are about one and one-half times as likely to have Alzheimer's or other dementia as whites.
Another startling figure exposed by the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) is that “Someone in the United States develops Alzheimer's dementia every 66 seconds.”
The state with the highest rate of Alzheimer’s is Alaska. Cases of the disease are projected to increase from 7,100 in 2017 to 11,000 in 2025 — an increase of 54.9 percent, reports AA.
Why are rates so high there?
It’s most likely due to the projected growth of Alaska’s elderly population. The older population is expected to increase to 35.6 percent by 2025; an estimated 70,900 to 110,000 people will be 65 and over.
Below is a list of the 10 states that are predicted to have the highest rate increases of Alzheimer’s by 2025.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 54.9 percent
Alaska may have the highest rate of Alzheimer’s, but it also has the lowest mortality rate from the disease. For Alaska, the rate is 9.2 deaths per 100,000 people. The U.S. rate is 29 deaths per 100,000, which is more than triple the mortality projected for Alaska.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 53.8 percent
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Alzheimer’s disease was the eighth-leading cause of death in Arizona. Arizona’s older population, one of the largest of all states, is estimated to grow by approximately 29.1 percent by 2025.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 48.8 percent
The expected increase in the older population in Nevada is 32.3 percent, which is a much higher rate than the anticipated growth of the entire country.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 41.7 percent
Vermont’s older residents encompass 7.2 percent of Vermont’s population, the sixth highest among all states. The sharp increase in Alzheimer’s in Vermont is due to the large portion of people who are 75 and over.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 40.0 percent
It’s estimated that older residents are just 10.3 percent of the population, but are expected to increase to 33 percent by 2025.
6. New Mexico
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 39.5 percent
Although lower than the national average, the estimated increase in New Mexico’s older population is 24.6 percent.
7. South Carolina
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 39.5 percent
The death rate from Alzheimer’s in South Carolina is the eighth highest in the U.S. — 40.1 deaths among every 100,000 people. Medicaid cost for Alzheimer’s patients in South Carolina reached $544 million in 2017 and is estimated to climb to $793 million by 2025.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 38.5 percent
Florida’s older population is above average. Approximately 1 in 5 residents are 65 and older and the older population is expected to grow by 25 percent by 2025.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 38.3 percent
The older population will grow from 83,000 to an estimated 116,800 in 2025.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 37.5 percent
The Medicaid cost of care for the disease is expected to soar to 47.8 percent from 2017 to 2025 in Idaho.
Where does your state rank on the list? See the full report.
My LAWSUIT against HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBOR has ME subjected to a dozen years of IMPLANT STIMULATION with the last 10 years being HIGH-LEVEL SENSORY STIMULATION and they are waiting for EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA. As we say our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown have extremely longer exposures if they started in the 1990s or earlier----ergo, ALZHEIMER'S/DEMENTIA today.
Below we see a list of states where these BRAIN DISEASE VECTORS are HIGHEST OR LOWEST. Remember, in Maryland global banking 1% HIT PEOPLE-------IMPLANT PEOPLE ----and then PUSH THEM OUT of BALTIMORE---OR MARYLAND sending these IMPLANTED PEOPLE to other states where this article with STATS again create FAKE DATA.
Living in a state with LOW-DEMENTIA STATS does not mean these IMPLANTS CREATED THE PROBLEMS in other states.
'We currently interact with computers with our peripheral nervous system: we use our fingers to type an email on our laptop, or our vocal muscles to produce speech and interact with voice recognition systems. In contrast, BCI captures signals directly from your central nervous system – your brain'
For example, NY and MA would have been high in HITTING AND IMPLANTING these few decades and then chasing/pushing those VICTIMS out of state as a few decades manifests with DEMENTIA/ALZHEIMERS.
PLEASE GOOGLE THE ENTIRE RANKING----MARYLAND AT 20 ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE IN THE MIDDLE WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF IMPLANT MEDICINE.
THE US CITIES AS FAILED STATES PUSHING OUR 99% OF CITIZENS INTO UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY SENT LOTS OF PEOPLE TO THE SOUTH ----FOR EXAMPLE.
GEORGIA, NORTH/SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL MAY BE GETTING THOSE 'HIT' IN MA/NY/MD.
The more complicated these BRAIN IMPLANTS these few decades ---the more damage to OUR BRAINS.
States Where Alzheimer’s Is Soaring
By John Harrington and Thomas C. Frohlich August 9, 2017 4:42 am | Last updated: December 18, 2018 6:43 pm
> Increase in Alzheimer’s, 2017-2025: 14.1%
> Pct. of 65+ pop. with Alzheimer’s: 12.8% (7th highest)
> Population 65+: 16.0% (15th highest)
> Pct. of 65+ pop. in good health: 80.4% (4th highest)
> Avg. retirement income: $20,252 (4th lowest)
There will be a significant increase in Alzheimer’s cases in every state. The number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease in Iowa is projected to climb by 14.1% between 2017 and 2025, the smallest increase of all states. The projected growth of each state’s elderly population is one of the best predictors of how fast Alzheimer’s cases will increase. Nearly 13% of the Iowa’s elderly population has the disease. While this is the seventh highest percentage of all states, it is expected to grow by just 20.7%, one of the slowest growths. The Alzheimer’s death rate in Iowa of 42 for every 100,000 people is fifth highest nationwide.
49. North Dakota
> Increase in Alzheimer’s, 2017-2025: 14.3%
> Pct. of 65+ pop. with Alzheimer’s: 13.0% (5th highest)
> Population 65+: 14.2% (11th lowest)
> Pct. of 65+ pop. in good health: 75.6% (21st lowest)
> Avg. retirement income: $22,776 (22nd lowest)
While the prevalence of Alzheimer’s in North Dakota will climb at a slower rate than in almost all states, a relatively large share of the state population dies from the disease. With nearly 50 deaths per 100,000 people, North Dakota has the second highest mortality rate for deaths associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
ALSO READ: Where Americans Are Traveling This Fourth of July and What They’ll Do
48. Rhode Island
> Increase in Alzheimer’s, 2017-2025: 17.4%
> Pct. of 65+ pop. with Alzheimer’s: 13.5% (the highest)
> Population 65+: 16.1% (13th highest)
> Pct. of 65+ pop. in good health: 78.1% (16th highest)
> Avg. retirement income: $25,966 (16th highest)
An estimated 13.5% of Rhode Island’s elderly population have Alzheimer’s, the highest share of all states. Alzheimer’s disease was the fifth leading cause of death in Rhode Island in 2014.
Living alone in old age can be a sign of social isolation, but also an indication of independence for many older Americans, as well as people with the disease. For individuals living with late-stage Alzheimer’s disease, living alone can be unsafe. About 31% of Rhode Island residents 65 and older live alone, the second highest share of any state.
47. South Dakota
> Increase in Alzheimer’s, 2017-2025: 17.6%
> Pct. of 65+ pop. with Alzheimer’s: 12.6% (9th highest)
> Population 65+: 15.7% (21st highest)
> Pct. of 65+ pop. in good health: 77.0% (23rd highest)
> Avg. retirement income: $20,765 (5th lowest)
South Dakota had the highest mortality rate from Alzheimer’s disease of any state with 50.9 deaths per 100,000 state residents. The relatively high incidence of the disease among the state’s elderly population largely explains the high mortality rate. States with low projected increases in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease almost always have low projected growths in the elderly population, but South Dakota is the exception. The state’s 65 and older population is projected to grow by nearly 27% by 2025, versus the national average growth of approximately 25%.
Regardless, like every other state, South Dakota will need more caregivers. Currently there are only 2.2 caregivers in the state for every Alzheimer’s patient, the fifth lowest ratio in the U.S.
46. New York
> Increase in Alzheimer’s, 2017-2025: 17.9%
> Pct. of 65+ pop. with Alzheimer’s: 13.2% (4th highest)
> Population 65+: 15.0% (22nd lowest)
> Pct. of 65+ pop. in good health: 73.7% (14th lowest)
> Avg. retirement income: $26,249 (15th highest)
New York’s Medicaid costs for those 65 and older with Alzheimer’s are expected to be $4.6 billion in 2017, the most of any state. Despite a slower than average eight-year growth rate in the number of elderly people with the disease, the state’s Alzheimer’s-related Medicaid costs are expected to remain the highest in the nation also in 2025.
The Empire State has more than 1 million caregivers tending to those with Alzheimer’s disease, or about 2.6 for every Alzheimer’s patient.
Look at these IMPLANT STUDIES -----which institutions were getting these FEDERAL FUNDING for IMPLANT TECHNOLOGY------and then what states are having the most cases of DEMENTIA/ALZHEIMER'S. The ranking are FAKE DATA.
One stat places UTAH as highest of all US states=====without coincidence MORMON global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are PUSHING THIS TOTAL IMPLANT CAPTURE as if it were A RELIGION----Hmmmm, are MORMONS great big TRANSHUMANISTS? We think so.
THE MORMON PROFIT 'SMITH' VERY MUCH TIED TO GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-------NOT RELIGIOUS.
Alzheimer’s Increase, 2017-2025: 40.0 percent
It’s estimated that older residents are just 10.3 percent of the population, but are expected to increase to 33 percent by 2025'.
'The medical device is years in the making, Johnson acknowledges, but he can afford the time. He sold his payments company, Braintree, to PayPal for $800 million in 2013. A former Mormon raised in Utah, the 38-year-old speaks about the project with missionary-like intensity and focus'.
Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation
- We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive. (God alone grants “exaltation” – not the WORKS of robot scientists – OTT)
- We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end. (The Prophet Isaiah declared this “seeking of POWER” to be the primary reason why Lucifer was cast out of heaven. Isaiah reasoned “Can the clay be greater than the potter who fashioned it? —- Ott)
- We feel a duty to use science and technology according to wisdom and inspiration, to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with future advances, and to persuade others to do likewise. (MAN’S wisdom and inspiration is not God’s! It is the ultimate manifestation of prideful SIN. —– Ott)
Hmmmm, the EXPERIMENTAL DECADES of brain implants having made DEMENTIA/ALZHEIMER'S soar-----is now the PREVENTATIVE medicine against DEMENTIA/ALZHEIMER'S----loss of memory.
Brain implant boosts memory for first time ever
Brain implant boosts memory for first time ever
New memory prosthesis could be a game-changer for dementia care.
Nov. 15, 2017, 3:00 PM EST / Updated Nov. 15, 2017, 3:34 PM EST
By Kristin Houser, Futurism
A professor built a brain implant that can reportedly improve short-term memory by 15 percent and working memory by 25 percent. The device could prove life-changing for the growing segment of the population impacted by Alzheimer's and dementia.
A BIONIC MEMORY BOOST
With everyone from Elon Musk to MIT to the U.S. Department of Defense researching brain implants, it seems only a matter of time before such devices are ready to help humans extend their natural capabilities. Now, a professor from the University of Southern California (USC) has demonstrated the use of a brain implant to improve the human memory, and the device could have major implications for the treatment of one of the U.S.’s deadliest diseases.
Dong Song is a research associate professor of biomedical engineering at USC, and he recently presented his findings on a “memory prosthesis” during a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Washington D.C. According to a New Scientist report, the device is the first to effectively improve the human memory.
To test his device, Song’s team enlisted the help of 20 volunteers who were having brain electrodes implanted for the treatment of epilepsy
Once implanted in the volunteers, Song’s device could collect data on their brain activity during tests designed to stimulate either short-term memory or working memory. The researchers then determined the pattern associated with optimal memory performance and used the device’s electrodes to stimulate the brain following that pattern during later tests.
Based on their research, such stimulation improved short-term memory by roughly 15 percent and working memory by about 25 percent. When the researchers stimulated the brain randomly, performance worsened.
As Song told New Scientist, “We are writing the neural code to enhance memory function. This has never been done before.”
A GROWING PROBLEM
While a better memory could be useful for students cramming for tests or those of us with trouble remembering names, it could be absolutely life-changing for people affected by dementia and Alzheimer’s.
As Bill Gates noted when announcing plans to invest $100 million of his own money into dementia and Alzheimer’s research, the disease is a multi-level problem that’s positioned to get even worse.
Age is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer’s, according to the Alzheimer’s Association, with the vast majority of sufferers over the age of 65. With advances in medicine and healthcare continuously increasing how long we live, that segment of the population is growing dramatically, and by 2030, 20 percent of U.S. citizens are expected to be older than 65.
This increase in the number of potential dementia sufferers can be costly in both a financial and emotional sense. In 2016, the total cost of healthcare and long-term care for those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease was an estimated $236 billion, and according to the Alzheimer’s Association, the more severe a person’s cognitive impairment, the higher the rates of depression in their familial caregivers.
Of course, further testing is required before Song’s device could be approved as a treatment for dementia or Alzheimer’s, but if it is able to help those patients regain even part of their lost memory function, the impact would be felt not only by the patients themselves, but their families and even the economy at large.
"For the First Time Ever, Scientists Boosted Human Memory With a Brain Implant" was originally published by Futurism, LLC on Nov. 14, 2017 by Kristin Houser. Copyright 2017. Futurism, LLC. All rights reserved.
TODAY, the problem for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE is this: global banking 1% is creating FAKE DATA FAKE NEWS surrounding these BRAIN IMPLANTS and the damage they did ------telling people THE OPPOSITE----these IMPLANTS HELP/EXPAND brain capacity and memory.
'brain-computer interfaces (BCI): an emerging technology where brain signals are directly translated to outputs with the help of machines'.
What makes all this FAKE MEDICAL DATA AND NEWS even worse is AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ------EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE which allows all this FAKE DATA to be used as REAL reasons to further IMPLANT our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. These HEALTH PLANS are now forcing people to follow these EVIDENCE-BASED FAKE RESEARCH.
So, someone has family member who may have had dementia-----or someone may have exhibited a disease vector global banking 1% has said is a SIGN of POSSIBLE early dementia-----and VOILA-------someone is IMPLANTED and told their memory will be BETTER.
Since JAN 2019 when FEEDBACK from HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBOR followed me all around all day------inside and outside my living space-------MESSAGING THROUGH COCHLEAR IMPLANT-----
DON'T FORGET YOUR KEYS----DON'T FORGET TO GET OFF THE BUS---DON'T FORGET THAT UMBRELLA.
This is being taken as MEMORY ---ENHANCEMENT. It has nothing to do with DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION----it is messaging coming in through the COCHLEAR IMPLANT.
'As Bill Gates noted when announcing plans to invest $100 million of his own money into dementia and Alzheimer’s research, the disease is a multi-level problem that’s positioned to get even worse'.
So, the top investment hedge funds pushing all these BRAIN IMPLANT leading to total human brain CONNECTIVITY were of course besides ELON MUSK-----BILL GATES. That internet software corporation bringing BILLIONS into these FAKE DATA ------also behind the IMPLANTING of people these few decades KNOWING the brain would be damaged.
TELEMEDICINE IS BILL GATES GOALS AS A TRANSHUMANIST.
These BRAIN IMPLANTS have no evidence of helping with MENTAL ILLNESS but MENTAL ILLNESS will be used as a reason to force people to CONSENT TO BRAIN IMPLANT CONNECTIVITY.
Tag: brain-to-internet connectivity
Posted on January 17, 2019113.
[Editor’s Note: As stated previously here in the Mad Scientist Laboratory, the nature of war remains inherently humanistic in the Future Operational Environment. Today’s post by guest blogger COL James K. Greer (USA-Ret.) calls on us to stop envisioning Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a separate and distinct end state (oftentimes in competition with humanity) and to instead focus on preparing for future connected competitions and wars.]
The possibilities and challenges for future security, military operations, and warfare associated with advancements in AI are proposed and discussed with ever-increasing frequency, both within formal defense establishments and informally among national security professionals and stakeholders. One is confronted with a myriad of alternative futures, including everything from a humanity-killing variation of Terminator’s SkyNet to uncontrolled warfare ala WarGames to Deep Learning used to enhance existing military processes and operations. And of course legal and ethical issues surrounding the military use of AI abound.
Yet in most discussions of the military applications of AI and its use in warfare, we have a blind spot in our thinking about technological progress toward the future. That blind spot is that we think about AI largely as disconnected from humans and the human brain. Rather than thinking about AI-enabled systems as connected to humans, we think about them as parallel processes. We talk about human-in-the loop or human-on-the-loop largely in terms of the control over autonomous systems, rather than comprehensive connection to and interaction with those systems.
But even while significant progress is being made in the development of AI, almost no attention is paid to the military implications of advances in human connectivity. Experiments have already been conducted connecting the human brain directly to the internet, which of course connects the human mind not only to the Internet of Things (IoT), but potentially to every computer and AI device in the world. Such connections will be enabled by a chip in the brain that provides connectivity while enabling humans to perform all normal functions, including all those associated with warfare (as envisioned by John Scalzi’s BrainPal in “Old Man’s War”).
Source: Grau et al.Moreover, experiments in connecting human brains to each other are ongoing.
Brain-to-brain connectivity has occurred in a controlled setting enabled by an internet connection. And, in experiments conducted to date, the brain of one human can be used to direct the weapons firing of another human, demonstrating applicability to future warfare. While experimentation in brain-to-internet and brain-to-brain connectivity is not as advanced as the development of AI, it is easy to see that the potential benefits, desirability, and frankly, market forces are likely to accelerate the human side of connectivity development past the AI side.
So, when contemplating the future of human activity, of which warfare is unfortunately a central component, we cannot and must not think of AI development and human development as separate, but rather as interconnected. Future warfare will be connected warfare, with implications we must now begin to consider. How would such connected warfare be conducted? How would mission command be exercised between man and machine? What are the leadership implications of the human leader’s brain being connected to those of their subordinates? How will humans manage information for decision-making without being completely overloaded and paralyzed by overwhelming amounts of data? What are the moral, ethical, and legal implications of connected humans in combat, as well as responsibility for the actions of machines to which they are connected? These and thousands of other questions and implications related to policy and operation must be considered.
The power of AI resides not just in that of the individual computer, but in the connection of each computer to literally millions, if not billions, of sensors, servers, computers, and smart devices employing thousands, if not millions, of software programs and apps. The consensus is that at some point the computing and analytic power of AI will surpass that of the individual. And therein lies a major flaw in our thinking about the future. The power of AI may surpass that of a human being, but it won’t surpass the learning, thinking, and decision-making power of connected human beings. When a future human is connected to the internet, that human will have access to the computing power of all AI. But, when that same human is connected to several (in a platoon), or hundreds (on a ship) or thousands (in multiple headquarters) of other humans, then the power of AI will be exceeded by multiple orders of magnitude. The challenge of course is being able to think effectively under those circumstances, with your brain connected to all those sensors, computers, and other humans.
This is what Ray Kurzwell terms “hybrid thinking.”
Imagine how that is going to change every facet of human life, to include every aspect of warfare, and how everyone in our future defense establishment, uniformed or not, will have to be capable of hybrid thinking.
Source: Genetic Literacy Project
So, what will the military human bring to warfare that the AI-empowered computer won’t? Certainly, one of the major challenges with AI thus far has been its inability to demonstrate human intuition. AI can replicate some derivative tasks with intuition using what is now called “Artificial Intuition.” These tasks are primarily the intuitive decisions that result from experience: AI generates this experience through some large number of iterations, which is how Goggle’s AlphaGo was able to beat the human world Go champion. Still, this is only a small part of the capacity of humans in terms not only of intuition, but of “insight,” what we call the “light bulb moment”. Humans will also bring emotional intelligence to connected warfare. Emotional intelligence, including aspects such as empathy, loyalty, and courage, are critical in the crucible of war and are not capabilities that machines can provide the Force, not today and perhaps not ever.
Warfare in the future is not going to be conducted by machines, no matter how far AI advances. Warfare will instead be connected human to human, human to internet, and internet to machine in complex, global networks. We cannot know today how such warfare will be conducted or what characteristics and capabilities of future forces will be necessary for victory. What we can do is cease developing AI as if it were something separate and distinct from, and often envisioned in competition with, humanity and instead focus our endeavors and investments in preparing for future connected competitions and wars.
… and watch Dr. Alexander Kott‘s presentation The Network is the Robot, presented at the Mad Scientist Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, & Autonomy: Visioning Multi Domain Battle in 2030-2050 Conference, at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, 8-9 March 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia.
COL James K. Greer (USA-Ret.) is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization (JIDO) Integrator at the Combined Arms Command. A former cavalry officer, he served thirty years in the US Army, commanding at all levels from platoon through Brigade. Jim served in operational units in CONUS, Germany, the Balkans and the Middle East. He served in US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), primarily focused on leader, capabilities and doctrine development. He has significant concept development experience, co-writing concepts for Force XXI, Army After Next and Army Transformation. Jim was the Army representative to OSD-Net assessment 20XX Wargame Series developing concepts OSD and the Joint Staff. He is a former Director of the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) and instructor in tactics at West Point. Jim is a veteran of six combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, including serving as Chief of Staff of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq (MNSTC-I). Since leaving active duty, Jim has led the conduct of research for the Army Research Institute (ARI) and designed, developed and delivered instruction in leadership, strategic foresight, design, and strategic and operational planning. Dr. Greer holds a Doctorate in Education, with his dissertation subject as US Army leader self-development. A graduate of the United States Military Academy, he has a Master’s Degree in Education, with a concentration in Psychological Counseling: as well as Masters Degrees in National Security from the National War College and Operational Planning from the School of Advanced Military Studies.
While FEEDBACK from HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS kept saying they were READING MY MIND----that I was CONTROLLED BY THEM--------that they could get me to say anything they wanted=====and indeed, this subliminal message through COCHLEAR IMPLANTS does get a person to repeat what is messaged-----whether these people KNOW they are getting messaged ----or whether the message is SUBLIMAL.
'Lin and his colleagues have received the first phase of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to plan and develop a definitive clinical trial that will monitor a large group of older adults with hearing loss. Half will get best-practice hearing treatment, and the other half will get what Lin calls "watchful waiting." '
Constantly I was told I was being controlled by BRAIN IMPLANTS ----that my MIND WAS CONTROLLED when almost all of this was COCHLEAR MESSAGING.
People not aware that they have been IMPLANTED-----are greatly confused by from where and by what these IDEAS hitting their minds and memory STEM.
If a patient implant is OFF--------we are sure they are still receiving that MESSAGE.
“The system will have two-way voice and video communication, two-way text messaging [patients may at times have their implant off and not be able to hear]'
During PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE I kept writing in my DEPOSITION------there was a UNIT tied to the illegal surveillance 24/7 video and PORN-----and below we see just that unit consists: cameras---microphones-----computer unit------diagnostic software courtesy BILL GATES AND ELON MUSK.
“The patient will only need a regular PC, broadband connection, a webcam, speakers and microphone, and a method to connect his implant to the PC.
He will not be required to set up the implant programming software.”
The first thing I had to do after finding out I was HIT----was to figure out what MESSAGING was going through my head and what brain thoughts were my own. It was very obvious early on that HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS were claiming to control or enhance sensory structures that WERE NOT ENHANCED.
Telemedicine making its way to cochlear implants
The Hearing Journal: November 2011 - Volume 64 - Issue 11 - p
This situation is not uncommon, and it is especially relevant in western Australia where approximately 15 percent of patients live more than 62 miles away from the Ear Science Institute of Australia's (ESIA) implant clinic. New telehealth software introduced by ESIA, though, may quash the need for extensive travel and allow patients to visit their audiologist virtually. With a computer connected to the Internet, a patient could have his implants tested by an audiologist just by plugging the device into his computer. No travel necessary.
“The system will have two-way voice and video communication, two-way text messaging [patients may at times have their implant off and not be able to hear], the ability for the audiologist to program the hearing implant, and a method for the patient to respond to sound stimuli,” said Prof. Robert Eikelboom, lead researcher for the cochlear implant remote mapping software. “The patient will only need a regular PC, broadband connection, a webcam, speakers and microphone, and a method to connect his implant to the PC. He will not be required to set up the implant programming software.”
These patients would have had to travel one-way a mean distance of 265 miles; some are as far away as nearly 2,000 miles, putting the total of one-way trips for all these patients at more than 22,369 miles. “The software was designed with these people in mind,” he said.
While patients in the United States may not have to travel quite as far, the computer program will prove useful for individuals with functional disabilities or other issues that prevent travel.
“People who are house-bound or in a nursing home would also have transport barriers to getting out to an audiologist; it's not dissimilar to living a long way away,” Eikelboom said. “When we consider the distance to be travelled, we also consider the time that this takes, and the arrangements that have to be made, whether it is time off work, care for kids, care for animals, or any other family disruption.”
The response to the institute's software has largely been positive, he said, although the project is still in its introductory phase. “We have many of the elements in place, and plan to start testing next month. We also plan to conduct a thorough evaluation, examining the feedback from the patients and the audiologists,” he said. The software is expected to be ready for use in Australia and other countries by the end of 2012.
To conduct a SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH STUDY one has to use SCIENTIFIC METHOD. First, the HYPOTHESIS must have BASIC SCIENCE backing it. Second, the study must be able to CONTROL FOR VARIABLES-----it must eliminate BIAS ergo, pre-set goals in research-----and these BRAIN IMPLANT studies DID NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Is a DEAF PERSON HEARING if all that is happening is a MESSAGING from a COCHLEAR IMPLANT in IMPLANTING a memory with this subliminal messaging? NO.
Before knowing I had BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS I can now remember being SUBLIMINALLY MESSAGED to SAY OR DO something. To repeat subliminal messages is EASY PEASY to do----these hearing/brain manipulations have been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Place a recorder under a person's pillow overnight and that person will think the thoughts of the morning WERE HIS.
What HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS are trying to do is FORCE RE-ORGANIZATION OF BRAIN ACTIVITY ----this is the goals of BRAIN CONNECTIVITY.
'The brain may re-organise or even have/make plasticity for better speech perception after cochlear implantation but the success of this process depends on many factors such as the age of implantation and the length of deafness'.
CREATING FALSE FAKE DATA SAYING THESE BRAIN IMPLANTS ARE PROVIDING SOCIAL GOOD WHILE MOVING FORWARD THAT RE-ORGANIZATION OF PLASTICITY TIED ONLY TO MIND-CONTROL IMPLANTS.
There is no capacity for MIND-READING----it is ALL AN ILLUSION.
Prominent German Neuroscientist Committed Misconduct in “Brain Reading” Research
A German funding agency imposes strict sanctions on Niels Birbaumer, whose studies, it says, contained incomplete data—but Birbaumer stands by his work
A prominent German neuroscientist committed scientific misconduct in research in which he claimed to have developed a brain-monitoring technique able to read certain thoughts of paralysed people, Germany’s main research agency has found.
The DFG’s investigation into Niels Birbaumer’s high-profile work found that data in two papers were incomplete and that the scientific analysis was flawed — although it did not comment on whether the approach was valid. In a 19 September statement, the agency, which funded some of the work, said it was imposing some of its most severe sanctions to Birbaumer, who has positions at the University of Tübingen in Germany and the Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering in Geneva, Switzerland. The DFG has banned Birbaumer from applying for its grants and from serving as a DFG evaluator for five years. The agency has also recommended the retraction of the two papers published in PLoS Biology, and says that it will ask him to return the grant money that he used to generate the data underpinning the papers.
“The DFG has found scientific misconduct on my part and has imposed sanctions. I must therefore accept that I was unable to refute the allegations made against me,” Birbaumer said in a statement e-mailed to Nature in response to the DFG’s findings. In a subsequent phone conversation with Nature, Birbaumer added that he could not comment further on the findings because the DFG has not yet provided him with specific details on the reasoning behind the decisions.
Birbaumer says he stands by his studies, which he says, “show that it is possible to communicate with patients who are completely paralysed, through computer-based analysis of blood flow and brain currents”.
The DFG also found that Ujwal Chaudhary, first author of both of the PLoS Biology papers and a member of Birbaumer’s team at the University of Tübingen and the Wyss Center, had committed scientific misconduct. The agency banned Chaudhary from applying for its grants and from serving as a DFG evaluator for three years. Chaudhary did not respond to a request for comment from Nature.
The misconduct findings against Birbaumer and Chaudhary relate to research conducted in 2013–14, in which they worked with four people with the neurodegenerative condition motor-neuron disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, who were being cared for at home by relatives. The scientists recorded the patients’ brain activity using sensors on their scalps. In a 2017 paper, Birbaumer and his colleagues reported that their analysis of the recordings allowed them to determine whether the patients were silently answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to simple questions. The paper attracted extensive media attention.
In the summary of its investigation committee’s findings, the DFG says that the scientists did not film patient examinations in full, did not appropriately show details of their analyses in the papers and made false statements.
The DFG stressed that the scientists had a “special responsibility” towards seriously ill people participating in innovative research. It said that they had not met this responsibility, “in particular by failing to document exactly the entire research procedure”.
Birbaumer says that filming often had to be interrupted to meet the participants’ immediate care needs, such as the need to suction saliva from their mouths. “For this reason, we did not upload data that we collected but had to declare as not analyzable in the publication. In addition, we did not describe every single step of the complex data evaluation and did not fully document it with accompanying video recordings,” he said in his e-mailed statement.
The DFG and the University of Tübingen opened separate investigations into the work in earlier this year, after a whistle-blower raised concerns about the research. Martin Spüler, who was then postdoc in informatics at Tübingen, said he was unable to reproduce the findings when he reanalysed the published data. An independent expert commissioned by the DFG confirmed Spüler’s findings, as did two additional whistle-blowers, according to the agency’s statement. The DFG commission found that the researchers had not analysed their data correctly. Four other co-authors of the studies were not investigated.
Birbaumer and his team published a rebuttal to Spüler’s criticisms in April this year — the second paper whose retraction the DFG recommended. PLoS Biology added expressions of concerns to both studies shortly after the DFG announced the findings of its investigation.
'patients may at times have their implant off and not be able to hear'
For a decade of having illegally and unconsented and unknowing COCHLEAR IMPLANT----I was TURNED OFF. That meant I could not hear incoming messages or discussion on THE NETWORK by HOSTING SERVER BARBER SURGEONS-----but they could HEAR everything I said----inside my LIVING SPACE---and outside in PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE.
JANUARY 2019------I WAS 'HIT' meaning that COCHLEAR IMPLANT was TURNED ON----and VOILA-----I was HEARING THE FEEDBACK from all those ON THE NETWORK----whether DOCTORS tied to medical studies----whether HACKERS messaging through the COCHLEAR DEVICE ---or whether a NOSY NEIGHBOR was paid by political machines to make me LOOK CRAZY-----DON'T TALK TO HER ---SHE IS CRAZY.
These COCHLEAR IMPLANTS can be installed inside EAR without people knowing. The messaging a person does not hear ends up in BRAIN as MEMORY-----SPAM MEMORY----not REAL MEMORY.
A victim of illegal implantation of COCHLEAR IMPLANT thinks these memories are his/her own---when they are not-----those memories could be coming from ANYWHERE.
Activating your cochlear implant
Prepare yourself for the moment you'll hear for the first time with your new device and know what questions to ask your audiologist.
As activation day approaches, you’ll probably feel nervous and excited. To help you prepare for the big day, we've put together a list of questions to ask your audiologist about what to expect on activation day and beyond.
Questions to ask about activation and beyond
- What happens during the appointment?
- What does getting activated feel like?
- Will I hear right away?
- How will it sound? Will it sound just like I remembered, or will it sound mechanical or high pitched?
- How long will it take to adjust to the new sound?
- How do I put on my device?
- How does my device work?
- What tips do you have for using my new sound processor?
- How often will I need to charge/change the batteries?
- Can I go swimming/take a shower right away?
- How do I store/care for my device?
- What resources do you recommend for rehabilitation?
- What happens if my hearing changes over time?
- Is there a network of hearing implant recipients in our community? Can you put me in touch with them?
What usually happens on activation day?
Your audiologist will explain how your sound processor works and how to care for it. They will then program your sound processor and set the volume and pitch levels that are right for you. It may feel like this is taking a long time, but it's perfectly normal.
Your audiologist will then switch on the implant.
The aim of this initial appointment is for you to tell the difference between a loud or soft sound. If you can tell the difference, you are on your way!
Don’t worry if you can’t hear clearly right away. It can take days or weeks of practice to train your brain to understand the signals it’s receiving.
On the other hand, you may be lucky enough to enjoy an activation moment just like Nan's. See the moment she heard again for the first time.
What to expect after your sound processor is turned on
Over the next several months after activation, you will most likely have a series of appointments with the audiologist to adjust and fine tune the sound processor's programs to help ensure optimal hearing performance. You will also need to follow the guidelines provided for care and maintenance, which vary based on device. We offer many "how to" videos, and our Customer Service team can help answer questions you may have.
Just as with any surgery, rehabilitation will be critical to your hearing progress and success. You will need to practice listening and speaking as much as possible. Please keep in mind that progress may take some time, but persistence and consistency can help a great deal. That’s why we offer robust and easy-to-use rehabilitation programs through The Communication Corner that can be tailored to your needs at every learning level.
WHY WOULDN'T A PERSON WITH A REAL HEARING DISABILITY WANT A COCHLEAR IMPLANT? BECAUSE ALL THEY ARE HEARING IS SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING THROUGH THAT IMPLANT-------AND MUCH OF IT IS NOT REAL.
As well, 24/7 audio streaming can do the same kinds of damage---not as much as DEEP BRAIN IMPLANTS---but, damage over some decades.
FOR WHAT? FOR RECEIVING SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES.
The COCHLEAR IMPLANT is key to the goals of BRAIN CONNECTIVITY ----MIND/BODY CONTROL
'Why Don't All Deaf People Get Cochlear Implants? - Hearing Sol
So, don't all deaf people get cochlear implants. To know more about cochler implant read the answer. Many factors, such as age, language acquisition, support, other disabilities, the degree of deafness, the age of deafness, can affect on cochlear implants advantage for an individual.
Why deaf people turn down cochlear implants - Insider
Share a cochlear implant activation video online and you're likely to see an all-out brawl unfold in the comments section. Deaf people assert that deaf kids don't need implants. Hearing people fire back, arguing that denying those kids cochlear implants is akin to child abuse. Even within the deaf community, there's fierce debate'.
When talking about increased DEMENTIA/ALZHEIMER'S from overuse of the brain in continuous information----this is the cause
'The process is very physically and mentally taxing — there is real fatigue due to working so hard to understand the sounds."'
Why some people turned down a 'medical miracle' and decided to stay deaf
Jan 3, 2017, 2:05 PM
Most hearing people think cochlear implants are a "cure" for deafness. They're not.
The INSIDER Summary:
• Many deaf people are encouraged to get a cochlear implant.
• It's a high-tech medical device that helps the deaf perceive sound.
• But these devices aren't as simple as they seem — and they're not a "cure" for deafness.
• INSIDER spoke with deaf people who have stopped using cochlear implants to learn why they're not always a medical miracle.
Five years ago, a deaf woman named Sloan Churman decided to film herself at the moment she activated her new cochlear implant — the surgically implanted device that helps deaf people perceive sounds. "29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!" she wrote as a caption, when she uploaded the clip to Youtube.
That video has now been viewed more than 26 million times.
The viral reach of Churman's story is no surprise, considering its emotional punch: Watch her face as she hears herself speak. Watch her, overcome by a new sensation, suspended somewhere between smiling and sobbing. You'll probably feel your own eyes well up, too.
Churman's video isn't the only one of its kind. Type "cochlear implant" into the search bar on YouTube and you'll find thousands of videos — even fan-made video compilations — documenting reactions of deaf or hard of hearing people getting their implants switched on.
Babies' faces scrunch up then light up when they finally hear the voice of a parent. Adults transform from straight-faced to full-on crying. And in every video, we see what appears to be boundless, uncomplicated joy.
But cochlear implants are not as simple as these viral videos make them seem.
For some deaf people, the implant really is a positive, life-changing intervention. For others, however, cochlear implants are more nuisance than medical miracle.
Doctors push implants as a cure — but they're not that simple.
According to Howard A. Rosenblum, CEO at the National Association of the Deaf, the number of people receiving cochlear implants has been on the rise since it earned FDA approval back in the 1980s. "This is primarily due to the philosophy of medical doctors that being deaf is a physical abnormality that should be cured," he wrote to INSIDER in an email. "Many doctors who perform cochlear implant surgeries have been aggressively promoting cochlear implants as a cure. Many parents who are struggling with the concept that their child is deaf often choose to proceed with cochlear implants on the basis of doctors' promotion of this technology as a cure."
Since at least 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, the implant is an alluring option — it offers the promise of easier communication. When children are implanted at a young age, chances are good that they'll grow up and understand speech, with little to no need for visual aids.
But presenting the technology as a simple "cure" is misleading. Deaf people don't understand speech perfectly as soon as the device is activated. They must spend months or even years working with speech therapists, learning how to process this unfamiliar sensory input. They're trained to lipread, to pick up on vocal cues, and to speak.
"Many people don’t realize that the surgery is only a small piece of the puzzle," a deaf father of an implanted deaf son told INSIDER. (He asked to remain anonymous to protect his privacy.) "Cochlear implant is a shock to the brain because it's never had to interpret these kind of signals before. I'd imagine it's like trying to read the jumbled scrolling code in the Matrix for the first time. The process is very physically and mentally taxing — there is real fatigue due to working so hard to understand the sounds."
In short: It takes practice. But even practice may not be enough to make a cochlear implant truly work for its user.