Well, according to Auditory-Verbal Inc. only about 20% of deaf kids can't benifit from hearing aids.
Yes, but I was referring to children *and* adults.
If it's totally 100% clear that a deaf kid does not benifit from hearing aids....like ANY type of hearing aids, I do think that implantation should be a clear shot for that population.
Agreed.
When I voice doubts about implantation, I am simply voicing doubts about the population for whom implantation is really kind of ambigious. Like for example I know of someone who can hear 80% with hearing aids, who has been told he's a possible canidate!
I highly doubt a surgeon or audi at a qualified CI center would tell a HA user with 80% discrimination that they are a possible candidate for a CI. Now if this person was given this information by a HA audi or ENT *that* I believe. Unfortunately, 99% of ENTs and HA audis are unfamiliar with the qualifications of CI candidacy. Even my own HA audi didn't know if I would be accepted as a candidate even though I had a 90+ dB loss with no measureable hearing aided or unaided at 1000 Hz and above.
I know of kids who could hear about 65% with aids (10% without) who were still eligable to be implanted.
Some CI centers will accept children or adults with speech discrimination scores slightly above 60%. I'd be willing to bet that the children you mentioned are functioning considerably better with CIs. In fact, I know of several cases where a child had 60% discrimination with HAs that rose to 95-100% with a CI. To me, that's a significant improvement and demonstrates that even if a child has 60% discrimination with HAs, they have the potential to understand 30-40% more with a CI.
However if someone has a very poor word response, then YES........they should get implanted.....I'm NOT anti-low response implantation.
What do you mean by "anti-low response implantation?"
I definitly think that ambigious canidates (like those who can hear around 45% and up with hearing aids) should go through at least five "trials" of hearing aids, just to be absolutly 100% sure that they've exhausted all possible routes.
FIVE trials of HAs? Are you kidding? When I was evaluated for a CI, I was already wearing the most powerful HAs available on the market and was tested using my HAs *and* Comtek FM system with direct audio input. Even with that set up, I only achieved 22% speech discrimination aided (right ear only). Many CI users I know were also wearing the most current up-to-date HAs at the time of their evaluation.
It does seem in some quarters that the CI has been almost seen as a TrEnDy new "gotta have" gadget. Not saying that ANYONE here is like that. But there do seem to be people out there who are kind of "trend whore" about the CI.
Agreed.
I am NOT criticizing ANYONE who opts for CI who has a poor response to hearing aids........(poor response is about <45% of speech) I'm just saying that maybe it might be better for the ambigious canidates to be required to first experiment with a variety of hearing aids, including non traditionals. If they don't respond well, then YES! The ambigies SHOULD be implanted..........but I just think that hearing response is just so indivdual, that it's worth it for the ambigious canidates to really experiment, and make sure that a simple switch of hearing aids/hardware/ change of earmold/tubing might not increase the percentage of words that they hear.
Agreed -- especially in the 1-2% of cases where CI candidates wore ITE aids during the time of their CI evaluation instead of being fitted with BTEs and an FM system.
Hear Again, I have never said that there's a significent population for whom the CI does not work. Just have said that the benifit from CI has been VERY VERY variable that's all. Some people are functionally hoh, but others only get enviromental noise benifit. And of course, every other hearing status in between.
You may not have made this claim, but 95% of the messages you post to AD come across as if you are discouraging, interrogating and questioning adults and parents who wish to obtain a CI for themselves or their child.
As for CI users who are only able to hear environmental sounds, again, they are no worse off than they were before getting a CI (provided they had no speech discrimination pre-CI with HAs). When you refer to CI users who can *only* hear environmental sounds, some of your posts seem to come across as if you are minimizing or discounting this as being a negative aspect of having a CI. Remember, success with a CI varies from person to person. Being able to hear only environmental sounds (your words) can be just as important (if not more) than being able to understand speech.
, Hear_Again!
I realize in the flat out qualified pop, most people HAVE experimented for years and years with different types of aids. 
Hear Again
