A cochlear implant story

neecy said:
From what I understand, adventitious deafness is any deafness happening after birth. Late deafened would fall into this category.
Click to expand...

If this is so, there should be something on that scale that defines where a person is without having to go into a long description to set up clearly where this person is. Pre and post lingual now seems crude....
 
Tousi said:
If this is so, there should be something on that scale that defines where a person is without having to go into a long description to set up clearly where this person is. Pre and post lingual now seems crude....
Click to expand...

I agree!! And that aside - who outside the medical/linguistic community regularly hears the term "adventitious" anyway? This was actually written on my medic alert bracelet when I was a child, and my Mom had to look it up so we (my family/friends, etc) knew what it meant! A new scale would be a good idea.
 
neecy said:
From what I understand, adventitious deafness is any deafness happening after birth. Late deafened would fall into this category.
Click to expand...

Right but I always thought late-deafened means over a period of years?...
 
Angel said:
Right but I always thought late-deafened means over a period of years?...
Click to expand...

I think just as adventitious causes some confusion, so does late-deafened. I went deaf at age 9 (meningitis,) and quite often when I share my experiences as a deaf child on this board (and others,) some people tell me that my opinions don't count because I was "late-deafened." Confusing isn't it?
 
neecy said:
I think just as adventitious causes some confusion, so does late-deafened. I went deaf at age 9 (meningitis,) and quite often when I share my experiences as a deaf child on this board (and others,) some people tell me that my opinions don't count because I was "late-deafened." Confusing isn't it?
Click to expand...


Wow, I'm so sorry to hear that, just because you went deaf at the age of 9 doesn't mean you can not share your past experiences as being a deaf child, that is just so wrong...

:sigh: :(
 
risk for language deprivation while deaf children are if they are not exposed to sign language
Click to expand...
.

Cueing your families spoken language to your deaf child complete access/exposure to spoken language from a fluent and native users, allowing the child to aquire the language of his/her family, no deprivation here.
 
neecy said:
Source: Deafness - a range of causes - Better Health Channel.


Source: DRC : Faculty Resources


Source: Hearing Basics


Source: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

I think the "deafness after birth" definition is well accepted in the educational and medical communities, it doesn't *always* mean post lingual. Just want to clear up this misconception so this term is used correctly.
Click to expand...

Here's the way we use it......congential deafness is deafness at birth, or deafness occurring after birth for a viariety of congential (birth related) causes. Therefore, a chilkd can be exposed congenitally to a viral agent such as measles or CMV, but be born with normal or near to normal hearing that gets progrssively worse due to congenital exposure of the viral agent, or at times, ototoxic medications.

Deafness after birth is defined by 2 categories: congenital and acquired, depending upon the etiology. Then there is further division into pre-lingual and post-lingual categories that refer to deafness prior to language acquisition, and deafness subsequent to language acquisition. Post-lingual is further divided into early onset, middle onset, and late onset.

The reason for so many categories and sub-categories is that there are specific developmental and adjustment issues that affect each of the sub-categories, but not all of the sub-categories.
 
neecy said:
I think just as adventitious causes some confusion, so does late-deafened. I went deaf at age 9 (meningitis,) and quite often when I share my experiences as a deaf child on this board (and others,) some people tell me that my opinions don't count because I was "late-deafened." Confusing isn't it?
Click to expand...

You know, neecy, I apologize if you ever got the message from me that your experience was not valid, or that your opinions don't matter. If I have ever given you that impression, it was simply to point out that the differences between a child who is congentially, pre-lingually deafened and a child who has acquired deafness at a post-lingual, middle onset point in development do exist, and that, in order to properly address the issues involved, we need to be aware of them.
 
jillio said:
Here's the way we use it......congential deafness is deafness at birth, or deafness occurring after birth for a viariety of congential (birth related) causes. Therefore, a chilkd can be exposed congenitally to a viral agent such as measles or CMV, but be born with normal or near to normal hearing that gets progrssively worse due to congenital exposure of the viral agent, or at times, ototoxic medications.

Deafness after birth is defined by 2 categories: congenital and acquired, depending upon the etiology. Then there is further division into pre-lingual and post-lingual categories that refer to deafness prior to language acquisition, and deafness subsequent to language acquisition. Post-lingual is further divided into early onset, middle onset, and late onset.

The reason for so many categories and sub-categories is that there are specific developmental and adjustment issues that affect each of the sub-categories, but not all of the sub-categories.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what Jillo said.

Your deaf related issues are very real, Neecy. They shouldn't be discounted. It's my understanding that becoming deaf - especially if it's sudden - can be devastating for those who could hear. All of a sudden you can't understand songs you could listen to in the past and it's harder to keep up with peers when in the past it must've been nearly effortless. I can see why you'd want to have normal hearing again. It's hard to miss something you've never had. Many prelinguals never had normal hearing. As a result, they're not devastated by their deafness like many postlingals are.

For prelinguals like me, we do have similar issues that many late deafened have. However, it's much harder for us to acquire a first language skills. Many late deafened have a hard time believing that I'm a prelingual at first because I've excellent English skills. There's signs that I'm a prelingual though. I used to think I could pass as a late deafened - until it occurred to me that I'd never be able to remember the content of songs or cartoons that weren't captioned when I was growing up.

Many prelinguals were denied access to language because parents wanted them to speak when they should have focused on the child's language skills. Many people will forbid signs because of a mistaken fear that signing will prevent deaf from learning to speak. Most Post linguals don't have to struggle with language skills because they already had them before they became deaf.

Hence why many prelinguals have problems with writing skills. I already had a good understanding of the English syntax when I entered the first grade according to my first grade report. However, I was a year behind in vocabulary. I did catch up to my hearing peers by the 4 grade and then began to surpass them in the fifth grade. I read a lot which is one reason why I've good English skills even if my punctuation and spelling leaves something to be desired. :P
 
Last edited:
deafskeptic said:
Yeah, what Jillo said.

Your deaf related issues are very real, Neecy. They shouldn't be discounted. It's my understanding that becoming deaf - especially if it's sudden - can be devastating for those who could hear. All of a sudden you can't understand songs you could listen to in the past and it's harder to keep up with peers when in the past it must've been nearly effortless. I can see why you'd want to have normal hearing again. It's hard to miss something you've never had. Many prelinguals never had normal hearing. As a result, they're not devastated by their deafness like many postlingals are.

For prelinguals like me, we do have similar issues that many late deafened have. However, it's much harder for us to acquire a first language skills. Many late deafened have a hard time believing that I'm a prelingual at first because I've excellent English skills. There's signs that I'm a prelingual though. I used to think I could pass as a late deafened - until it occurred to me that I'd never be able to remember the content of songs or cartoons that weren't captioned when I was growing up.

Many prelinguals were denied access to language because parents wanted them to speak when they should have focused on the child's language skills. Many people will forbid signs because of a mistaken fear that signing will prevent deaf from learning to speak. Most Post linguals don't have to struggle with language skills because they already had them before they became deaf.

Hence, why many prelinguals have problems with writing skills. I already had a good understanding of the English syntax when I entered the first grade according to my first grade report. However, I was a year behind in vocabulary. I did catch up to my hearing peers by the 4 grade and then began to surpass them in the fifth grade. I read a lot which is one reason why I've good English skills even if my punctuation and spelling leaves something to be desired. :P
Click to expand...

:gpost: very well written, if I may add!

I did experience that disbelief too about me being a prelingual due to my writing skills too. Like u, I loved to read and that was the key to my writing skills. Like u, I always tested below when it came to vocabulary but eventually I caught up with that as well.
 
deafskeptic said:
Hence, why many prelinguals have problems with writing skills. I already had a good understanding of the English syntax when I entered the first grade according to my first grade report. However, I was a year behind in vocabulary. I did catch up to my hearing peers by the 4 grade and then began to surpass them in the fifth grade. I read a lot which is one reason why I've good English skills even if my punctuation and spelling leaves something to be desired. :P
Click to expand...

Same here. I was a very avid reader as a child as my mother had us going regularly to the library from an early age. My nephew, who is a primary signer was also encouraged to read a lot and hence he has achieved the best exam result in his deaf school's history.

I think one other advantage of giving a child early sign skills is so that they can develop social skills with other children. That was one thing I was behind on as a child, I reckon, even if my language was pretty good. I think that even if a parent finds that a mainstream educational placement better suits their situation they still have other options such as an after school youth club or a summer camp for deaf children to allow those skills to be developed.
 
Angel said:
Yes, :ty: Jillioie.. I'm learning something new everyday...:D
Click to expand...

He he yeah. I learned something new too. I hadn't known what adventitious deafness meant till today. It can refer to those who became deafened anytime after birth, correct?
 
Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy
By "this woman" you mean Melissa Greenlee's?
She was late deafened.
She was deafened at age 8. That is considered to be post lingual. Late deafened refers to adventitious deafness. There is a difference.

But anyway, what was your point?
My point is that you brought up early implantation regarding this article.



YOU get a grip on yourself, and kindly answer my question, please?:
WHERE did I said the CI is going to improve the situations of discrimination?
In every post you have made regarding the CI allowing for integration into the hearing world.
Fuzzy

Now, would you kindly answer all of the questions I have posed to you that you have convieniently avoided?
Click to expand...

what questions? I don't see any?

Sure, but let's start from the beginning as you derailed at one point.
My point is that you brought up early implantation regarding this article.
Click to expand...

Yes, SO?

The thread is about Melisa who went deaf at the age of 8. By this point she succesfully acquired hearing and speech, and thus hearing language development.

At one point Cheri and I started discussing about CI in GENERAL (so sorry Highlands). It had nothing to do with Melisa's CI.

When I said "early implantation" while talking to Cheri I wasn't talking about MELISA. I was talking about the single fact the early implantation yields better results than late because of the "window of opportunity",
and again it had nothing to do with Melisa.

Now, it's a fact that being born deaf and implanted late with CI is not the same as being late deafened (meaning after acquiring hearing and speech) and implanted late. The difference is huge.
So, when you wrote this:

This woman was implanted at age 24. That hardly qualifies for early implantation.
Click to expand...

you made a huge mistake assuming I meant Melisa. It had nothing to do with Melisa, just something that came up off topic during my and Cheri exchange.



Now kindly please answer MY question:
WHERE did I said the CI is going to improve the situations of discrimination ???

Cause you intend to keep ranting and pushing others about CI, and what it like to be implanted and how it would solve all of our problems ....
Click to expand...

I NEVER SAID THAT. Please show me where I said that.
At most I said it would help to live easier as a deaf person.


And how would the doctor really knows it could work, Can he predict the future? No, he cannot.


But he said COULD, as in MIGHT, not as IT SURE WILL...

Of course s/he can. That's what experts are for. To give a realistic outcome of the procedure.

that's a good point...

Stay focused cloggy. The comment regarding the fact that the CI could put an end to her deafness is what I was referencing.
Click to expand...

It did put end on Melisa's deafness. She CAN hear now.
WHAT and HOW she can hear is another matter.

The only unsupportive action being taken here is your refusal to support the deaf in their attempts to bridge the gaps. Why is it that you seek to sonstantly widen the gap, cloggy?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Cloggy is MOST supportive of the deaf bridging the gaps. The problem is most people here are constantly putting him down every time he tries to explain something, simply because often they do not understand his message.


Fuzzy
 
deafskeptic said:
He he yeah. I learned something new too. I hadn't known what adventitious deafness meant till today. It can refer to those who became deafened anytime after birth, correct?
Click to expand...

Correct :)
 
Audiofuzzy said:
At most I said it would help to live easier as a deaf person.
Click to expand...

What's the difference does it make? it still means to solve all of our problems to make our life easier as you said....

IF you read at the bottom of my signature it says "" You were given this life, because you're strong enough to live it... " ...so therefore I'm strong enough to live my life as being deaf....I don't need a CI in order to make my life easier, and whether or not IF I do get a CI , I will still be deaf without them, so whats the point?...
 
Back
Top