CI's for under 1 ???

[jillio]

I explained to Jillio at one time recently how I really dont have that high of an opinion of all those 'educated' experts whom I've encounted. The phycologists I've encounted remind me of the one on the cave man commercials. LOL She was sorry I had had some bad encounters. Since I think I've seen her state that she has some type of degree in pyhcholgy I can see why her talking is reminding me so much about the personal encounters I 've had.

Many people that i've encounted in the schools seem to think that their college degrees can trump common sense. Well for some maybe, but I've become to cynical (sp?) after all my encounters with the college educated masses, starting when my duaghter was actually young and I really really thought they knew and cared.

Your personal experience is hardly indicative of the whole.

 

[jillio]

The solution is quite simple. Make it a point to learn a few phrases in the language they're speaking in and learn which gestures are offensive. I'd make sure that I learn the word deaf in their language so they'll know I don't hear normally.

You can also use home made signs to get your point across.

Excellent points!

 

[jillio]

1) hurling insults........cant think of much worse than offering to bash someone who is being held down by someone else.
2) Breaking into a discussion......seems to me thats what this forum is all about, each having their say.
3) your whole above post is a perfect example of the way you lash out at thos who have a different view point.

What is it with you oralist supporters? You are so defensive that you take any post that is contradictory to the way you view things, and immediately, instead of defending your position with logic and empirical eveidence, start to throw personal insults around like they were baseballs. Thenn, when the same is directed right back at you, you want to whine about being picked on. Get a grip.

 

[jillio]

Correct me if I am wrong, but would a deaf signer with a professional degree be limited in any way in their interaction with work colleagues? Would everyone they come in contact with be signers or would they need the assistance of a terp?

The same question can be asked of the oral deaf. They require accommodations as well. What's your point?

 

[jillio]

Not so! I have a link here that points this out...A Critical Period for the Development of the Human Central Auditory Pathways

Here is another excerpt...

Critical periods also appear to exist in the auditory system. Language development, dependent on the auditory system, is known to have a critical period [for a review see (Skuse, 1993Go)]. Transient expression of acetylcholinesterase, seen in the rat visual and somatosensory cortices during their critical period, is also found in the auditory cortex with a similar time-course (Robertson, 1987Go; Robertson et al., 1991Go). The cholinergic system is known to be involved in learning effects in the auditory cortex (Juliano, 1998Go; Kilgard and Merzenich, 1998Go; Weinberger, 1998Go) and might play a role in the formation of thalamocortical connections. Lesion studies, in the cochlea as well as in the central nervous system, support the idea of a critical period in auditory development (Harrison et al., 1991Go) [for a review of central lesions see e.g. (Wakita and Watanabe, 1997Go)], as do the data from congenitally deaf individuals equipped with cochlear implants (Eddington et al., 1978Go; Busby et al., 1992Go; Fryauf-Bertschy et al., 1997Go). If congenitally deaf patients are implanted during childhood they can gain complete language competence. However, congenitally deaf patients implanted as adults have significantly poorer auditory performance and do not gain comparable language competence. The deficits in the auditory system responsible for their poor performance remain to be explored.

The link for the above is here...Congenital Auditory Deprivation Reduces Synaptic Activity within the Auditory Cortex in a Layer-specific Manner -- Kral et al. 10 (7): 714 -- Cerebral Cortex

As I have mentioned before there are two developmental issues going on here. One has to have the cognitive development aspect and the auditory development aspect. Without a properly developed auditory system, you can forget ever being able to hear or speak as well as the hearing do.

And those critical periods can be applied to the use of sign as language as well. Those critical periods are for language acquisition, not for oral language acquisition. There is also an optimal peiod for learning a language. Critical period and optimal periods are not the same time frame.

I agree that there are two issues.....however, cognitive issues and developmenatal issues are interrelated, and quite often dependent upon each other.

 

[jillio]

seems to me that all one needs is a pencil, some paper and the ability to read and write.

YES!

 

[SteveAUD]

And those critical periods can be applied to the use of sign as language as well. Those critical periods are for language acquisition, not for oral language acquisition. There is also an optimal peiod for learning a language. Critical period and optimal periods are not the same time frame.

I agree that there are two issues.....however, cognitive issues and developmenatal issues are interrelated, and quite often dependent upon each other.

The article was pertaining to the AUDITORY nervous system (i.e....your brain making sense and deciphering auditory input as it pertains to speech/language). Language can be a number of different modalities, that's not what is being explored in the above article. There is no question that learning language between the ages of 1-4 is much easier than mastering high school Spanish at the age of 16. That is because 80% of what we learn about speech and language occurs by the time we are 4yrs old.

 

[jillio]

The article was pertaining to the AUDITORY nervous system (i.e....your brain making sense and deciphering auditory input as it pertains to speech/language). Language can be a number of different modalities, that's not what is being explored in the above article. There is no question that learning language between the ages of 1-4 is much easier than mastering high school Spanish at the age of 16. That is because 80% of what we learn about speech and language occurs by the time we are 4yrs old.

And I am saying the same applies to signed languages. And acquisition of a signed language facilitates the learning of a second language.

 

[R2D2]

CI context or non-CI context.... We were discussing physiology of the brain, and the way it processes information. But....since you asked, Mark Marshark, et.al has done numerous studies on the cognitive psychological aspects of deafness, language processing, etc. in the deaf.

I don't think anyone disagrees when you are only talking about the physiology of the brain. I think no one disputes that a signer from an early age can use transferance to develop fluency in say written English. I suspect this is what Marscharks' studies prove.

It's just that your post #91 in reply to Oceanbreeze which sparked off the whole discussion seemed to imply that it was possible to learn to hear later on in life, after having no or little sound input. A careful reading of Oceanbreeze's original post makes it clear that she was refering to the process of hearing.

This is the take that S171soars has made of your post. I think he wanted to clarify that you weren't refering to hearing and or spoken language because it certainly wasn't clear.

 

[sr171soars]

I don't think anyone disagrees when you are only talking about the physiology of the brain. I think no one disputes that a signer from an early age can use transferance to develop fluency in say written English. I suspect this is what Marscharks' studies prove.

It's just that your post #91 in reply to Oceanbreeze which sparked off the whole discussion seemed to imply that it was possible to learn to hear later on in life after having no or little sound input. A careful reading of Oceanbreeze's original post makes it clear that she was refering to the process of hearing.

This is the take that S171soars has made of your post. I think he wanted to clarify that you weren't refering to hearing and or spoken language because it certainly wasn't clear.

Yes and along those lines, I originally just wanted to clarify that there were two issues...one of cognitive functionality and that of auditory functionality (and this was my main thrust of argument especially in terms of development in early years) and Jillio finally conceded that there were two issues recently. What really got me into this was Jillio's post (#104) which implied that it wasn't necessary to develop the auditory center in the early years for one to develop speech. At that point, I was quite speechless (pardon the pun ) at such a thought and had to say something. Of course, many posts later we are sort of still dancing around this subject but by now it is sort of a beating a dead horse kind of thing.

I willingly agree with Jillio's assertion that both cognitive and auditory functions must work together for best results. I really wanted to make sure it was understood that auditory functions are the main foundation by which one even have a chance with speech development regardless of cognitive abilities. How else would cognitive abilities even get anywhere if the auditory mechanism (wiring and all) isn't working properly?

 

[jillio]

Yes and along those lines, I originally just wanted to clarify that there were two issues...one of cognitive functionality and that of auditory functionality (and this was my main thrust of argument especially in terms of development in early years) and Jillio finally conceded that there were two issues recently. What really got me into this was Jillio's post (#104) which implied that it wasn't necessary to develop the auditory center in the early years for one to develop speech. At that point, I was quite speechless (pardon the pun ) at such a thought and had to say something. Of course, many posts later we are sort of still dancing around this subject but by now it is sort of a beating a dead horse kind of thing.

I willingly agree with Jillio's assertion that both cognitive and auditory functions must work together for best results. I really wanted to make sure it was understood that auditory functions are the main foundation by which one even have a chance with speech development regardless of cognitive abilities. How else would cognitive abilities even get anywhere if the auditory mechanism (wiring and all) isn't working properly?

My main point was that language centers of the brain can also be activated by the language of signs. And that auditory centers don't atrophy, but lie dormant. And that speech production of perceived sounds does not necessarily require a cognitive ability, simply an imitative ability.

 

[sr171soars]

My main point was that language centers of the brain can also be activated by the language of signs. And that auditory centers don't atrophy, but lie dormant. And that speech production of perceived sounds does not necessarily require a cognitive ability, simply an imitative ability.

***Rolling my eyes big time!*** Obviously, we have been talking at cross purposes. How sad! I'm out of this discussion...

Have a good day!

 

[dreama]

This is the whole point of the discussion we are having. For many children who are eligible for a CI (i.e. not able to benefit from a hearing aid) waiting until they are old enough to make up their mind is too late. It's not really a choice because when they are older, they get very limited benefit from their CI due to the fact that the window for developing auditory stimuli in the brain slows down rapidly after the age of 5.

By not implanting a child, you are making a choice for that child in terms of what choices they will have as adults. It's not necessarily the end of the world or positive or negative - but let's call a spade a spade - it's a choice!

A recent study sponsored by the NDCS in the UK where deaf teenagers were interviewed regarding their parents' decisions to implant them as young children found that the majority were positive and understanding about the decisions that were made on their behalf when they were too young to do so.
There aren't many studies that address those issues and hopefully, more will come but it's a positive start.

I've heard about that study before and some people have problems with it not having a very big selection of children and not really reflecting on truth of the matter.

I think the problem with implanting children age 1 or under before they have any ability to communicate is that they can't really make a decision not to wear their implant if they don't like it. Whereas an adult can.

I'd be rather curious to hear from Shel who has a lot of experience with deaf children if it is possible to implant a young child AFTER they are old enough to communicate (via BSL/ASL) AND get benifit from the device? If a young deaf child can say in sign language "I don't like this machine please can it be turned off' and the parent willing to respect that decision then that would not be so bad. My concerns are babies and non signing deaf children being forced to wear this device AGAINST their wishes just because they are too young to communicate properly.

 

[Raykat]

An open question, answers from anyone pease..........if your child is born with less than perfect vision, ie, vision is blurred, child is crossed eyed, whatever other examples you can come up with.........apparently opticians can diagnose these things well before the child can speak and complain about poor sight...........at what age would you have the child fitted with glasses???????

 

[shel90]

An open question, answers from anyone pease..........if your child is born with less than perfect vision, ie, vision is blurred, child is crossed eyed, whatever other examples you can come up with.........apparently opticians can diagnose these things well before the child can speak and complain about poor sight...........at what age would you have the child fitted with glasses???????

Glasses is not invasive surgery.

Vison and language development are not correlated.

 

[shel90]

I've heard about that study before and some people have problems with it not having a very big selection of children and not really reflecting on truth of the matter.

I think the problem with implanting children age 1 or under before they have any ability to communicate is that they can't really make a decision not to wear their implant if they don't like it. Whereas an adult can.

I'd be rather curious to hear from Shel who has a lot of experience with deaf children if it is possible to implant a young child AFTER they are old enough to communicate (via BSL/ASL) AND get benifit from the device? If a young deaf child can say in sign language "I don't like this machine please can it be turned off' and the parent willing to respect that decision then that would not be so bad. My concerns are babies and non signing deaf children being forced to wear this device AGAINST their wishes just because they are too young to communicate properly.

We will have a student (I cant give more details on gender, age or whatever due to privacy reasons) who will get a CI this summer so we are all very curious to how that student will do with it.

We had a boy who got a CI 2 years ago at the age of 8...interesting that after he got his CI, his expressive language improved using ASL but still doesnt use spoken language. However, his receptive language in both signing and spoken language improved so..never know but at least he is being exposed to both and doing great with both..just expressed that he is not interested in learning how to speak but likes to "listen" using his CI. Cant explain why that happens. However, he loves his CI so that's good rather than him hating it and then resenting his parents for making the decision for him.

 

[jillio]

I've heard about that study before and some people have problems with it not having a very big selection of children and not really reflecting on truth of the matter.

I think the problem with implanting children age 1 or under before they have any ability to communicate is that they can't really make a decision not to wear their implant if they don't like it. Whereas an adult can.

I'd be rather curious to hear from Shel who has a lot of experience with deaf children if it is possible to implant a young child AFTER they are old enough to communicate (via BSL/ASL) AND get benifit from the device? If a young deaf child can say in sign language "I don't like this machine please can it be turned off' and the parent willing to respect that decision then that would not be so bad. My concerns are babies and non signing deaf children being forced to wear this device AGAINST their wishes just because they are too young to communicate properly.

Exactly. I have a paper copy of that particular study, and nopt only did they use a small sample size, it goes on to say that even though the majority of these kids are in an oral only educational environment, they learned and use sign with their friends. Further, the minority are in a TC educational environment. This was a survery, and survey methodology is nortoriusly known for drawing a biased sample--in other words, only the most satisfied will choose to participate. Out of 144 people contacted, only 28 responded.

In addition, it goes on to point out that these kids are not functioning at the same levels acxademically as their hearing peers, and function more in line with the control group, which was deaf with HA.

 

[jillio]

An open question, answers from anyone pease..........if your child is born with less than perfect vision, ie, vision is blurred, child is crossed eyed, whatever other examples you can come up with.........apparently opticians can diagnose these things well before the child can speak and complain about poor sight...........at what age would you have the child fitted with glasses???????

As with HA, glasses can be removed and are not surgically implanted into the body. Comparison is fallicious.

 

[jillio]

We will have a student (I cant give more details on gender, age or whatever due to privacy reasons) who will get a CI this summer so we are all very curious to how that student will do with it.

We had a boy who got a CI 2 years ago at the age of 8...interesting that after he got his CI, his expressive language improved using ASL but still doesnt use spoken language. However, his receptive language in both signing and spoken language improved so..never know but at least he is being exposed to both and doing great with both..just expressed that he is not interested in learning how to speak but likes to "listen" using his CI. Cant explain why that happens. However, he loves his CI so that's good rather than him hating it and then resenting his parents for making the decision for him.

And that is great, because he is not being forced to change his communication method based on implantation.

 

[R2D2]

Exactly. I have a paper copy of that particular study, and nopt only did they use a small sample size, it goes on to say that even though the majority of these kids are in an oral only educational environment, they learned and use sign with their friends. Further, the minority are in a TC educational environment. This was a survery, and survey methodology is nortoriusly known for drawing a biased sample--in other words, only the most satisfied will choose to participate. Out of 144 people contacted, only 28 responded.

In addition, it goes on to point out that these kids are not functioning at the same levels acxademically as their hearing peers, and function more in line with the control group, which was deaf with HA.

Oh well, the fact was that it was still considered of a sufficient standard enough to be published in a well respected journal is good enough for me. It's a peer reviewed paper! I would agree that the study would need to be repeated to either strengthen or discredit the hypothesis but it's a good start!

In this thread that you created about a particular study http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/42192-psychosocial-development-ci.html
there were only 22 subjects, even fewer than the study that you have so many problems with on account of sample size. Obviously since you told us about it, you think this study is valuable despite the small sample size. Why the difference in attitude?