Candidacy for CI

Then those people will just get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion at different centers till one with lax requirements says "yes"

I know someone here on AD who did just that. So?
 
The mother wants the child to hear the best which is understandable but realize that the average CI result is 40db(such as what Overthepond achieved) also as Shel said, 30% of CI implantees aren't happy with their CIs or don't recieve much benefit from them. Even with a progressive loss, as long as HAs give enough benefits, what's the hurry? There will always be better technology.

Where do you get the idea that the average loudness a person can hear is 40 dB? The average is more like 20-30 dB.

So what if 30% of implantees are unhappy with their CIs? (I'd like to see data to confirm this.) If 30% are unhappy, it means that 70% are pleased.

If someone chooses to have a CI because they only understand 40% or less of speech, why do you care if they want to be implanted? If a CI has the potential to give them 90% or more speech discrimination (including being able to hear better in noise), why not go that route instead of continuing to use hearing aids that don't help?
 
There will always be better technology.

Why waste time waiting for better technology when a person can hear better NOW?
 
faire_jour said:
AVT would be nearly impossible with a severe-profoundly deaf hearing aid user. It would be cruel for a child. How can you learn to listen when you can't hear?
Click to expand...

If you were in an oral program with a profound loss and hearing aids back when I was in elementary school you did get AVT.

I had a moderately severe-profound loss and it was cruel for me! I had no clue what they were saying with their mouths covered! I can't imagine having the profound loss I have now and going through that!
 
I want to chime in on the hand over the mouth thing...

I have experienced it and for me it was torture. I am not going to say it is that way for all children or adults though. Some children may have the listening skills and the hearing to be able to do it. I didn't and I don't. I also always prefered Sign over speech and I was horribly bitter when they wouldn't let me sign! However, for another child they may be able to easily switch back and forth, or they may prefer speech. It's individual.
 
Hear Again said:
IMO, it is. Why prevent a child from using a clue that can aid in communication? Even if covering one's mouth helps them hear better, why not allow them to lipread? It's not as if lipreading negatively affects their ability to hear. Many children are capable of hearing and lipreading at the same time.
Click to expand...

Interesting because this is how I was able to listen/hear when I was younger. That's why I was asking whether I had "speech" classes, or speech/AVT combo.

I learned how to speak well and not so nasally because of this, but I also was able to pick up sounds and hear sounds when someone covers their mouths. It's not cruel, IMO, but I think if it was simpilfied. It would go like this:

*cover mouth* "Cat Dog", "Book School", etc. and even if we get a small part of it it's okay.

It's only given to certain students who have the ability to do so. The other students instead get more reinforcement with their other skills such as writing, English, Idioms (that was my favorite), Math, etc. Since many of the students have poor skills in other subjects, so the speech class is like tutoring. In High School, some of the students still took "speech", others it was tutoring. For me, it was more of just talking and having fun. I would be corrected on my speech if I messed up.

Again, that's why I think I had a combination of speech and AVT, just not strictly AVT. Nowadays, the school has a LOT more implanted children, so the speech classes in turn become AVT for them.

Mind you - this school is a Total Communication school. I do not agree with some of their philosophy and the "shielding" that I see and feel from them.
 
JennyB said:
I want to chime in on the hand over the mouth thing...

I have experienced it and for me it was torture. I am not going to say it is that way for all children or adults though. Some children may have the listening skills and the hearing to be able to do it. I didn't and I don't. I also always prefered Sign over speech and I was horribly bitter when they wouldn't let me sign! However, for another child they may be able to easily switch back and forth, or they may prefer speech. It's individual.
Click to expand...


I totally agree that it was just too much to expect a child to be successful with that.

At my school, it depends on invididual basis. If a child has the ability to do so like you said, they will get some sort of AVT included with their speech classes, others don't. Either because they're profoundly deaf, don't wear hearing aids, do not speak, or HA doesn't really work for speech comprehension, etc.
 
Hear Again said:
Why deny a child the right to lipread when it can enhance their progress with a CI or HA?
Click to expand...

Because it interferes. This is how I see it: When a dog needs therapy on one leg that has atrophied due to wearing a long term cast, do you consider it "therapy" when it barely walks on that leg as long the dog is still walking? You still have to single out that leg, stretch it, get it to its potential without the help of other legs. I noticed it happening when I wore both CI and HA at the same time. I hear things with the HA that are familar to me, but because the HA distracts me from what I can hear with the CI, so I can't really practice "listening" with the CI.

There is a difference between trying to supply all means of communication to a deaf child (in this case, covering lips is dumb) and working towards a goal of listening better (in this case, covering lips is necessary). I'm not even going to touch on the subject of making deaf kids to "listen better", but I will say that AVT is definitely necessary for CI-users. I speak from personal experience (me!).
 
Daredevel7 said:
Because it interferes. This is how I see it: When a dog needs therapy on one leg that has atrophied due to wearing a long term cast, do you consider it "therapy" when it barely walks on that leg as long the dog is still walking? You still have to single out that leg, stretch it, get it to its potential without the help of other legs. I noticed it happening when I wore both CI and HA at the same time. I hear things with the HA that are familar to me, but because the HA distracts me from what I can hear with the CI, so I can't really practice "listening" with the CI.

There is a difference between trying to supply all means of communication to a deaf child (in this case, covering lips is dumb) and working towards a goal of listening better (in this case, covering lips is necessary). I'm not even going to touch on the subject of making deaf kids to "listen better", but I will say that AVT is definitely necessary for CI-users. I speak from personal experience (me!).
Click to expand...

A child can learn how to hear with a CI or HA while lipreading at the same time. One does not have to exclude the other.

Lipreading doesn't always interfere with progress either.

In fact, many children benefit from being able to use visual cues in addition to auditory.
 
Hear Again said:
A child can learn how to hear with a CI or HA while lipreading at the same time. One does not have to exclude the other.

Lipreading doesn't always interfere with progress either.

In fact, many children benefit from being able to use visual cues in addition to auditory.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way, who is more likely to understand a person when he turns around while speaking, the person who learned to "listen" with or without lipreading?

As I said before, there is a difference between exploring all avenues to facilitate communication with a deaf child and specific "hearing" therapy. I am just saying that AVT is necessary to CI users and it wouldn't make sense to cover the mouth. In fact, since I lipread fine without the CI, what's the point of AVT for me if I can lipread everything? I would do well in therapy in this case and wouldn't even need it.
 
Hear Again said:
Alot of people don't get 20-30db aided with CI. Overthepond hears 35db-40db with CI but then she had 60db aided at 1000Hz and NR above that. Her unaided hearing was almost as little as Hear again's and her aided hearing not much better.

Charlotte (overthepond) hasn't had her CI as long as I have. It's normal for people to hear at the 35-40 dB range when they are first activated. It will take time for her to improve to 20-30 dB, but it will happen.
Click to expand...

Thank you Hear Again, I was going to say that i didn't have my CI as long as you did... I am still in early stages, probably would see good results at my 9 Month but on other hand i am still happy with what i have got. CI doesn't happen overnight, it takes months perhaps years to improve.
 
overthepond said:
Thank you Hear Again, I was going to say that i didn't have my CI as long as you did... I am still in early stages, probably would see good results at my 9 Month but on other hand i am still happy with what i have got. CI doesn't happen overnight, it takes months perhaps years to improve.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, Charlotte. :)

I couldn't agree with you more about progress taking months or years. This was definitely the case for me. I spent 4 years hearing poorly until 6 high frequency electrodes were turned off on both CIs. Now I'm hearing better than ever and can truly say that I love my CIs. I loved my CIs before, but not to the same extent since they didn't offer me the same level of speech understanding that they do now.
 
As I said before, there is a difference between exploring all avenues to facilitate communication with a deaf child and specific "hearing" therapy. I am just saying that AVT is necessary to CI users and it wouldn't make sense to cover the mouth. In fact, since I lipread fine without the CI, what's the point of AVT for me if I can lipread everything? I would do well in therapy in this case and wouldn't even need it.

That's your choice Daredevel, but if I had a Deaf child with a CI or HAs, I would allow them to lipread and use all communication techniques available to him or her. I see no reason not to.
 
Hear Again said:
That's your choice Daredevel, but if I had a Deaf child with a CI or HAs, I would allow them to lipread and use all communication techniques available to him or her. I see no reason not to.
Click to expand...

I am so confused. You have a CI right? You know that adjustments need to be made. When you turn it on, what you hear initially isn't right. For example, right now, because of AVT, I cannot tell the difference between eee and ooo. However, it's no problem if I could lipread eee and ooo. In my mind, eee and ooo 'sound' different because I'm associating them with my lipreading. However, once the therapist covers her mouth, I realized "wow they sound COMPLETELY the same". A deaf child with a CI that has no AVT (with mouth covered) wouldn't be able to say "hey, I need to adjust my CI because eee and ooo is flat and sounds the same." Someone who is born deaf does not know how or what to hear, so they cannot tell what sounds wrong. That's where AVT comes in.

To me, therapy for the CI is a whole different ballpark from therapy with the HA.
 
<bangs head against desk>

Of course we want to let our children lipread and use all communication techniques available to them.

We have been talking about covering mouths from a therapy or training standpoint, and the methods used to help. How has that not been made clear over and over and oh, over again in these past few pages? Have any of us ever said we'd not let children lipread or use every resource available when they're not in training/therapy? No.
 
I have been reading this thread for days trying to think where I stand. Even through I have spent my life deaf, I only had one year of speech, not AVT. My mom did most of the training at home with me. I don't remember her covering her mouth, but it could not have hurt. I am a very experience lipreader. I have had to "untrain" myself since my CIs. I practice not reading lips in order to improve my comprehension. I do believe it is important to have the skill as well as try not to use it as well. (hope that makes sense)

Now the other side, I teach phonics. I teach students to see the mouth movements in order to pronoun words. I train them to open the mouth and use the back of the throat to product the "h" sound. I use two programs "Language!" and "Lipps" for hearing children. If using mirrors, facial expressions and training with hearing children, then why not deaf children with CIs or hearing aids. In these programs you use visual cues to help them understand, the same goes for any child. Use the best resources available so the child has the best opportunity.

So now I am on the fence. I see both sides.
 
AlleyCat said:
We have been talking about covering mouths from a therapy or training standpoint, and the methods used to help. How has that not been made clear over and over and oh, over again in these past few pages? Have any of us ever said we'd not let children lipread or use every resource available when they're not in training/therapy? No.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about allowing a child to use lipreading while in therapy. I think I've been very clear in expressing that opinion as well.
 
Hear Again said:
I'm talking about allowing a child to use lipreading while in therapy. I think I've been very clear in expressing that opinion as well.
Click to expand...

I just think that therapy is for training her ears, not her eyes. If she uses lipreading during everyday life, that is fine, but in therapy we need to know how much she hears. That is the whole point. If she lipreads, then how can we figure out and work on her hearing?

For example, the Ling sound check. She needs to hear the difference between "ahhh", "oooo", "eeee", "mmmm", "ssss", and "shhh". If she can see the therapists mouth of course she is going to get them right! But mishearing "ooo" and "mmmm" is a sign that she needs a new MAP, so we need to know what she is hearing, not what she is seeing.
 
faire_jour said:
For example, the Ling sound check. She needs to hear the difference between "ahhh", "oooo", "eeee", "mmmm", "ssss", and "shhh". If she can see the therapists mouth of course she is going to get them right! But mishearing "ooo" and "mmmm" is a sign that she needs a new MAP, so we need to know what she is hearing, not what she is seeing.
Click to expand...

Exactly! This is what's happening to me right now. I cannot tell the difference between ooo and eee (which is kind of weird since I can hear ooo and eee very well with the HA!), so I need a new MAP.
 
Let's just agree to disagree. I think every deaf child with a CI or HA should be allowed to lipread whether they are in AVT or not.
 
Back
Top