Auditory-verbal therapy research claims

F

flip

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
0
I found this scientific claim about reading and writing skills beeing depedent on the part of brain that manages sound. Is this true or just a hoax? Never read about this other places.

Pasted from Auditory-Verbal Therapy at the Learning to Listen Foundation - Papers and Articles

"Most people think that reading is a visual skill, but recent research on brain mapping shows that primary reading centers of the brain are located in the auditory cortex – in the auditory portions of the brain (Chermak, Bellis, and Musiek, 2007; Pugh, 2006; Tallal, 2005). That’s why many children who are born with a hearing loss and who do not have access to auditory input when they are very young (through strong hearing aids and auditory teaching), tend to have a great deal of difficulty reading even though their vision is fine. Therefore, the earlier and more efficiently we can allow a child access to meaningful sound with subsequent direction of the child’s attention to sound, the better opportunity that child will have of developing spoken language, literacy, and academic skills (Werker, 2006). With the technology and early auditory-verbal intervention available today, a child with a hearing loss CAN have the same opportunity as a child with typical hearing to develop audition, speech, language, cognition, competence in conversation and academic skills (Robertson, 2000)."
 
If that is so true then deaf children of deaf parents who have been exposed to sign language only since birth wouldnt be able to read and write at all!!!! There are studies that have shown that many of them have excellence literacy skills despite having no auditory therapy so hmmmmmm...there is a contradiction somewhere isnt there?

I never got a CI ..just regular hearing aides but could never make out speech sounds at all. I could only hear environmental sounds but yet, I was able to develop my literacy skills just fine. So...if this study is so right then I wouldnt be able to read all these posts nor be able to write in my posts. :dunno:

In my opinion.. I think the best approach is exposing the child to both visual and auditory languages. Why not? I see no harm in that instead of just exposing one or the other only.

There will always be doctors, audologists and specialists doing all these studies to show how hearing is the best way for a child to read and write. I think children are so amazing..they can learn to read and write thru visual or auditory approaches.

Isnt it ironic that there are hearing people who teach their hearing babies sign language for better language development but yet sign language is denied to many deaf babies? Kinda ironic, isnt it? It is one that really pisses me off.
 
Thanks flip and no it is not a hoax... you can look up to see if this person;
Carol Flexer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
The University of Akron

is a actual person or not eh... :D

you said "never read about this other places" well did you look at those list of References? (at bottom of articles) and maybe that's why you haven't read those... *shrug*
 
Thanks for replies! Let me clear a bit up why I get puzzled about this article.

She makes conclusions that without sound part of brain developed, it is hard to learn to read. I am not sure if the books and papers in the reference list does make this conclusion, it does actully looks like she concludes with that herself.
The article is not published through any university or resarch institiute either, but looks like done private, but thanks to the reference list, it looks like a university resarch paper.

This way, this article looks like a "hoax", and that's why I am askin for other sources with credibility, that makes the same conclusions as this woman. Honestly I would be surprised it there are any, but you never know.
 
flip said:
Thanks for replies! Let me clear a bit up why I get puzzled about this article.

She makes conclusions that without sound part of brain developed, it is hard to learn to read. I am not sure if the books and papers in the reference list does make this conclusion, it does actully looks like she concludes with that herself.
The article is not published through any university or resarch institiute either, but looks like done private, but thanks to the reference list, it looks like a university resarch paper.

This way, this article looks like a "hoax", and that's why I am askin for other sources with credibility, that makes the same conclusions as this woman. Honestly I would be surprised it there are any, but you never know.
Click to expand...

When a child is exposed to sign as their primary mode of communcation, the auditory centers in the brain process sign langauge as they would process audiory language in a hearing child. Auditory memory is stimulated through recognized morphemes in handshapes just the morphemes in oral language would be recognized through hearing.

You are right in that her conlcusions are based on her own interpretation of the data. However, there have been numerous studies done regarding auditory memory function in the field of cognitive psychology. And these are published studies, not simply research papers, which means that testing methods and data analysis, as well as particpant selection and research methods must comply with IRB standards, and must be reviewed by the board. I'd suggest you check out some of the very credible research done on this subject if you are truly interested.
 
Boult said:
Thanks flip and no it is not a hoax... you can look up to see if this person;
Carol Flexer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus
The University of Akron

is a actual person or not eh... :D

you said "never read about this other places" well did you look at those list of References? (at bottom of articles) and maybe that's why you haven't read those... *shrug*
Click to expand...

Literacy skills are not dependent upon auditory function or input. They are dependant upon language input. The auditory centers in the brain do not atrophe or cease to fuction due to lack of auditory stimuli. If language is in a visual mode, the brain adapts to such, and auditory centers take over the processing of visual language input.
 
This has to be a hoax. Because if literacy skills are dependent upon the auditory center in the brain, then how does one explain the startling number of profoundly deaf people walking around now with PhDs and all sorts of advanced degrees? I'm all for research and writing academic papers but when common sense is left out of the equation then the results not always representative of the subject.
 
It's not a hoax kids under 5 years of age learning sign language, the auditory part of the brain is where inherent language whether aural or visual is located. It does seem paradoxical but true nonetheless. But after age 5, all languages that are secondary, or tirtiary is spread over different parts of both sides of the brain
 
Thanks all of you for clearing this out. I did not know that sign language fits the auditory part, too, but sure it makes sense!

This makes me wonder: if a language have moved into the auditory part of the brain before an age at 5, can it move out again? It seems some kids with strong sign langauge in childhood, turn into more SEE type signing after reading lots of books or going mainstream. Something similar goes with some hearing kids, turning deaf, and becoming strong sign language users. Or CODAS that signs first, then become talkers later. What is going on here, in the auditory part of brain?

And one last questions. Many deaf kids are not exposured to a full language before they enter deaf school at age 6. Where will the language they learn go in the brain? I have seen a deaf kid age 6 with no language develop prior to entering school, develop very quickly with sign language interactions, but wonders if it perhaps is "too late" in some areas, and then, in what areas.

Hope I did not ask too heavy questions!
 
flip said:
Thanks all of you for clearing this out. I did not know that sign language fits the auditory part, too, but sure it makes sense!

This makes me wonder: if a language have moved into the auditory part of the brain before an age at 5, can it move out again? It seems some kids with strong sign langauge in childhood, turn into more SEE type signing after reading lots of books or going mainstream. Something similar goes with some hearing kids, turning deaf, and becoming strong sign language users. Or CODAS that signs first, then become talkers later. What is going on here, in the auditory part of brain?

And one last questions. Many deaf kids are not exposured to a full language before they enter deaf school at age 6. Where will the language they learn go in the brain? I have seen a deaf kid age 6 with no language develop prior to entering school, develop very quickly with sign language interactions, but wonders if it perhaps is "too late" in some areas, and then, in what areas.

Hope I did not ask too heavy questions!
Click to expand...

No, the language centers remain in the auditory processing protion of the brain. But they can change the way in which they process--i.e. from ASL syntax to English syntax. The langauge of an older learning child would be processed in the same centers, but the processing would be slower and not as automatic as with a child who has acquired language from birth.
 
Flip......................I'd be skeptical about this "research"........Notice that Carol Flexer is very hardcore AV.....so of course, she's gonna try to find "research" that reinforces the way SHE sees things.
 
And Boult.......just to clarify I think AVT is a good tool to have........I'm not anti auditory verbal therapy, on an enrichement basis.......Simply anti auditory verbal as a lifestyle. Like its OK if you send your kid to AVT......but creating an auditory verbal therapy 24/7 lifestyle? UGH!!!!! Carol Flexer is one of those witchipoos who think that dhh kids shoudl be in an eternal speech therapy session.
 
deafdyke said:
And Boult.......just to clarify I think AVT is a good tool to have........I'm not anti auditory verbal therapy, on an enrichement basis.......Simply anti auditory verbal as a lifestyle. Like its OK if you send your kid to AVT......but creating an auditory verbal therapy 24/7 lifestyle? UGH!!!!! Carol Flexer is one of those witchipoos who think that dhh kids shoudl be in an eternal speech therapy session.
Click to expand...

Pppttthh to being in speech therapy all day. I experienced that and it took the fun out of a part of my childhood and for what? I don't use my speech/lipreading skills much anymore cuz too much work and it wore me out. Whenever I am around hearing people all day like with family, I notice that my eyes and head start hurting so it is no wonder I prefer to be in a signing environment. Less stress and I can enjoy myself more.
 
shel90 said:
Pppttthh to being in speech therapy all day. I experienced that and it took the fun out of a part of my childhood and for what? I don't use my speech/lipreading skills much anymore cuz too much work and it wore me out. Whenever I am around hearing people all day like with family, I notice that my eyes and head start hurting so it is no wonder I prefer to be in a signing environment. Less stress and I can enjoy myself more.
Click to expand...

Don't knock it even if it was hard. The point being that one doesn't always know who could really use it and take off. I sure know that I wouldn't be where I am in life without it. It wasn't always easy for me either but slowly but surely it paid off. It really all comes down whether or not one hears well enough to get real benefits from it in the long run.

Having said all that, I quite understand what you meant. :D
 
sr171soars, yes............but why the heck should it be 24/7 therapy? Speech is an awesome skill, and kids should definitly have speech therapy.........but an eternal speech therapy session? UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
sr171soars said:
Don't knock it even if it was hard. The point being that one doesn't always know who could really use it and take off. I sure know that I wouldn't be where I am in life without it. It wasn't always easy for me either but slowly but surely it paid off. It really all comes down whether or not one hears well enough to get real benefits from it in the long run.

Having said all that, I quite understand what you meant. :D
Click to expand...

I was just speaking from my own personal experience..not saying that it is bad for all deaf people. To be honest, I am not too crazy with the idea of eternal speech therapy is which it is a 24/7 thing. Maybe for like 2 hours a day or something like that.
 
My daughter actually enjoys her AV therapy.She only sees her therapist once a week, but she enjoys her lessons at home as well. There are so many times where she pulls out the therapy games and comes to me and wants to play what she calls the "listening games".Even in an informal setting when she dose'nt pronounce something right and i correct her, she is very eager to learn to say it the right way. I really think it's the way you go about doing it, like to her it's playing games rather than a speech lesson. I don't know how speech lessons were years ago but when i am giving her speech lessons, we are playing bingo, board games or barbies or whatever. You don't have to be a drill sargeant about it, just make it fun.
 
Even in an informal setting when she dose'nt pronounce something right and i correct her, she is very eager to learn to say it the right way. I really think it's the way you go about doing it, like to her it's playing games rather than a speech lesson. I don't know how speech lessons were years ago but when i am giving her speech lessons, we are playing bingo, board games or barbies or whatever. You don't have to be a drill sargeant about it, just make it fun.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that language therapy is more fun then the mechanics of speech. The trouble with auditory verbal is that it doesn't really make aquirring the mechanics of speech fun. Trust me.........I mastered spoken language, early on........but had to go through the drudgery of speech. And yes..........you can integrate language aquastion with every day situtions AND make it fun........but, I think as Kayla gets older and better at speech, it's gonna be harder to make speech fun.
 
shel90 said:
I was just speaking from my own personal experience..not saying that it is bad for all deaf people. To be honest, I am not too crazy with the idea of eternal speech therapy is which it is a 24/7 thing. Maybe for like 2 hours a day or something like that.
Click to expand...

I must of missed the 24/7 part. I agree with you for a couple of hours a day max. Who in the world makes anybody do something 24/7? Even I would have been sick and tired of it and wanted no more it.
 
Back
Top