Karina Mann
"Artificial Cricket Hairs To Help Deaf People." Technology Trends. Google, 20 June 2005. Web. 11 Feb. 2010. .
http://www.primidi.com/Artificial_Cricket_Hairs_To_Help_Deaf_People
Technology Vocabulary/AOI:
- MEMS technology: arificial hair technology
- CICADA: Cricket Inspired perCeption and Autonomous Decision Automata
- Health/Medicine
Synthesis:
For many people they have had to suffer with hearing loss and not being able to hear anything. There now has been a way created for them that is new and better. There used to be the big ear things on your ears that helped you hear. Now there is a brand new way of hearing. Anyone could say they can hear like a cricket.
The new technology is called artificial cricket hairs. They help a person to hear. It is uncertain how well they work yet. It is a brand new way of hearing and great news for people who don't want to use the old fashion hearing aide. The new cricket hair helps like a cricket hears.
A cricket hears with a certain part of its body and uses its hair on its body to reverberate and hear other things. With the reverberation people are now able to control some artificial cricket hair and use it in their ear to hear. It has been a great contribution to the world and to the deaf people so they can hear. It might be better for them hearing with the cricket ears than with the hearing aide because it is new and modeled after an actual living thing. It could help a whole lot with being able to hear.
If a person can't hear they should be able to use the artificial cricket hair. It has a sensor so a person could hear what is being said and pick up what is going on around the room. There is no reason why a person should not have new cricket hair. It will be able to help who lose their hearing or never been able to hear to be able to hear. It is an amazing achievement with how far sensory technology has come to helping people.
SEI Analysis:
Authenticity:
The artificial cricket hairs will be an amazing hit to the uniqueness to them. It is uncertain whether they help people who are majorly deaf or only a little bit. It would be interesting to know if there would be an issue on if there is only a certain kind of deaf people who can have these cricket hairs. If it was for everyone than it would be excellent. There is a chance that they were designed special for a deaf person who has gone completely or almost completely deaf.
The best way to tell is if a person would be able to tune the cricket hairs to a certain degree and if they could turn them on and off. If they stayed on after implanted or given to them than it would be a whole new life for them. If a person could hear then they would experience all the noises of the night and what happens when they are asleep. It could be a better experience for all elderly people to be able to hear so they do not have to yell because they don't think they are talking loud enough. It would be a relief and lessen the strain on their voice box if they could talk normal and be able to hear better.
When a person is able to hear better they do not know what they have been missing until they do. If a person never experienced hearing in their whole life it would be an interesting way to learn in the world through a whole new experience that was given to them. It would be uplifting and helpful. If the authenticity is for someone in general that would be a good thing to have them individualized instead of making them all the same for everyone. That would probably cause problems.
Equality of Access:
As a new technology the artificial cricket hairs are probably going to be a problem with equality of access. It is most likely going to cost money and a lot of money at that because it is a new product in the market. If it was expensive it would limit the buyers. If there were some buyers who liked it the price might stay the same. If barely anyone bought the product then the price might go down a little bit.
If it was a free trial given to children then it would be evident that the product should be sold and can be sold to anyone. Giving it to children at a young age is the best that can be done because they could come back for renewals or better ones. If the first one is free then the next one will be better and might be more expensive than the first one. That would be able to let the people try it out and let them see if it works. If it is a low income family than it is up to the company what to do with the product. There might be able to make a scholarship to needy children with hearing problems if they child needs the second pair because the first ones were used up.
If the artificial cricket hairs are implanted into a person's head and doesn't need anything else besides that then the company would not make any profit if they let people have it for free. A price would be bargained for and would probably be higher than the old fashioned hearing aides. They would in return be better than the old fashioned hearing aides. The equality of access in not certain, but is unlikely. If it was equal there would be no profit and no more new technology.
People and Machines:
Man and machine have a chance of combining. With the artificial cricket hair it might be able to be combined with actual body and not replaced. It could be updated maybe automatically like a computer would be. It would be neat if it could update so nicely. If this technology can be combined with a person then it will be man and machine working together. The one problem is if the machine stops working will the human still function without it. There is a possibility that it could connect that deeply, but it is not very likely.
If this sensor technology is not combined with the human figure than what will the ear be like after is has technology so that it can hear without being updated or looked at weirdly. It could be soon after this invention there could be another one greater than it that will allow a person to be able to hear and have normal check ups after it being implanted. It could be helpful. A young person would have hearing for a lot longer than they would normally. Elderly folk would be able to hear long after they are dead because of the technology with their brain combined to their body.
It could be a problem with the public if a person for the first time got an ear implant or something similar so they could hear. A person and doctor might be judged as unethical because it has never been done before. If it is a problem with the public it is there choice what to do about it. If a person would like to try and hear again then they might be willing to take the measures of implanting an artificial ear in their body. It would then not be an issue for them.
With this new "cricket" technology people may be able to hear greater then they ever had before but people work differently then crickets. With cricket technology humans are using cricket hairs to hear which could be more powerful then anything that the human ear can handle. If the cricket hairs pick up more sound then the human ear is capable of there could be serious damage to the persons ear drum. I do believe that this technology could eventually allow humans to hear and respond to more in their environment but with the explanation of this new technology there is no way that the "cricket hairs" would be prescribed by many doctors. I wonder if scientists are working to make it so these "cricket hairs" could also be used for people with only particularly deaf people and not just completely deaf people. Many people that wear hearing aids only have minor hearing loss but with these "cricket hairs" people with only minor hearing loss by be negatively affected by this new technology. My question for you is, are there any scientists that are working on a way to make these "cricket hairs" work for everyone and not just people that are completely deaf?
ReplyDeleteBy: Haley Lannom
This new wave of technology meant to help the deaf doesn’t really seem to be doing much. It seemed that there was a very little data to actually support the fact that this was helping those with hearing loss. I wonder, as Haley said, if there is anyone trying to improve this technology so it would be available to do more good. There already are solutions for those with partial hearing loss, so this doesn’t really seem to be helping. I do agree however, that if this technology is further developed, it would be another step forward in fusing man and machine, which is a scary concept. If they are really connecting to a human’s brain, they are very close together. What will be next? The line between man and machine is starting to blur and we might cross over to the other side sooner than we think.
ReplyDelete--Rosemary
This thing about cricket ears is very interesting and seems like it could help people. The thing is, is that all it is, is a thing. According to the article it has not been made yet? Also, how exactly is it suppose to work? I do not really understand how crickets can hear, you would think that they would only be able to pick up vibrations of some sort. to add to that, How do we know what crickets can hear? How are people capable of dissecting something so small and finding out how it works? To me this does not seem very credible, but then again it is still a concept. So I understand that it is meant for good, and yes it is a great idea.
ReplyDelete-DJ S.
Devin Bunge
ReplyDeleteI disagree heavily with the SEI of AOA in this article. Putting experimental technology in children is unethical in my opinion when there is safe and currently more acceptable options. Mentioned in the article it was said that the children need to come in for updates or some other thing. What if that wasn't possible and one company controls the distribution of the hairs. This would give the children very little options in hearing aids.
This is an interesting change in current development in the area concerning the hearing impaired. I'm sure given few years this would be improved and possibly implemented. The Implementations are interesting to think of. I imagine either the cricket ears used for either Robotics or implemented into humans. I suspect the probability of robots much earlier than humans. Due to the possibility of malfunctions or other errors. It would be most likely that people choose the conventional item over the risk of problems.