CI's for under 1 ???

[Cloggy]

The brain remains plastic until the mean age of 22 years. I don't know where you get your information, but it is icorrect.

"icorrect" is incorrect.... great word to misspell !!

Still, I do not see you provide any info on that statement of yours... like with any other statement you make...

But I got my information from numerous sites and articles on the net.
Most(you excepted - no surprise) agree that for language and speech development 6-7 years of age is where the difference lies....

 

[jillio]

"icorrect" is incorrect.... great word to misspell !!

Still, I do not see you provide any info on that statement of yours... like with any other statement you make...

But I got my information from numerous sites and articles on the net.
Most(you excepted - no surprise) agree that for language and speech development 6-7 years of age is where the difference lies....

Well, I would suggest that you open a developmental psychology book, or a physiological psychology book. Depending upon the site you are using, the net is not the most reliable source for information. It is expected that when a thinking peson finds a source on the net, they do some hard research into the validity of what they have just read in order to evaluate it.

Exactly what do you mean by "agree that for language and speech development 6-7 years if age is where the difference lies...... Very confusing syntax, cloggy. Difference in what?

And thank you for pointing out my typos. I will return the favor!

 

[sr171soars]

Again, the brain remains very plastic until the mean age of 22 or 23.

There is a difference in the plasticity of the brain and the "wiring" aspects related to hearing. The later is set in the first 5-7 years or so and the earlier one stimulates this in age the better. The reason is that the brain will shift the use of "hearing region" to another task if not used for hearing. This explains the difficulty factor for those who never heard before and are teenagers or older to make use of CIs as such (there are always exceptions to the rule but the odds are not in one's favor). The former (plasticity) simply depends on the circumstances and what one is talking about. Technically, the brain never really stops having that ability but it may be harder the older one gets. I was told when I got my CI at 47 that my brain plasticity would easily adapt to a CI as I was already used to hearing all these years. That indeed turned out to be the case.

 

[jillio]

There is a difference in the plasticity of the brain and the "wiring" aspects related to hearing. The later is set in the first 5-7 years or so and the earlier one stimulates this in age the better. The reason is that the brain will shift the use of "hearing region" to another task if not used for hearing. This explains the difficulty factor for those who never heard before and are teenagers or older to make use of CIs as such (there are always exceptions to the rule but the odds are not in one's favor). The former (plasticity) simply depends on the circumstances and what one is talking about. Technically, the brain never really stops having that ability but it may be harder the older one gets. I was told when I got my CI at 47 that my brain plasticity would easily adapt to a CI as I was already used to hearing all these years. That indeed turned out to be the case.

Yes, the brain does remain plastic throughout a lifetime. I should have qualified that statement. It begins to decline in plasticity beginning at 22-23 years of age (mean). But the wiring of which you speak is more of a cognitive function. That is the interpretation of sounds into something meaningful. That is a learned skill, and is not innate. Only the capacity for language (all language) is innate. And agreed, it is easier because you are relying on auditory memory, which a child deaf from birth does not have. While the auditory centers of the brain may take over other processing tasks, they do not atrophy. While you were not hearing, your auditory center was not receiving sound, and therefore, not processing it. However, when you began to hear again, the processing of auditory stimuli was reawakened, and the sleeping center in your brain was put back to use. It had remained functional the entire time. That was where the plasticity came in. Sort of like learning to use a muscle again after a long period of non-use. But the interpretation of that sound is a cognitive feature. When a child has not heard for 20 years, and suddenly begins to receive sound stimuli, the auditory centers in the brain "wake up" and begin to process that electric stimulus into sound automatically. But processing into sound doesn't necessarily lead to the cognitive processing of that sound into meaningful stimuli. That is a process that is based on experience and learning. And that learning can occur at any point. Particularly so if a child has been given the advantage of sign language during the optimal periods for acquisition. Making the cognitive leap from visual as language to sound as language can be accomplished more easily because the child has already been given the cognitive concept of language. Just because it is in a different form doesn't do harm. It is the cognitive concept of undertanding that symbol represents concept that is important. Once it has been applied to one symbol, the information can be synthesized to include other symbols.

 

[sr171soars]

..But the wiring of which you speak is more of a cognitive function. That is the interpretation of sounds into something meaningful. That is a learned skill, and is not innate. Only the capacity for language (all language) is innate. And agreed, it is easier because you are relying on auditory memory, which a child deaf from birth does not have. While the auditory centers of the brain may take over other processing tasks, they do not atrophy. While you were not hearing, your auditory center was not receiving sound, and therefore, not processing it. However, when you began to hear again, the processing of auditory stimuli was reawakened, and the sleeping center in your brain was put back to use. It had remained functional the entire time. That was where the plasticity came in. Sort of like learning to use a muscle again after a long period of non-use. But the interpretation of that sound is a cognitive feature. When a child has not heard for 20 years, and suddenly begins to receive sound stimuli, the auditory centers in the brain "wake up" and begin to process that electric stimulus into sound automatically. But processing into sound doesn't necessarily lead to the cognitive processing of that sound into meaningful stimuli. That is a process that is based on experience and learning. And that learning can occur at any point. Particularly so if a child has been given the advantage of sign language during the optimal periods for acquisition. Making the cognitive leap from visual as language to sound as language can be accomplished more easily because the child has already been given the cognitive concept of language. Just because it is in a different form doesn't do harm. It is the cognitive concept of undertanding that symbol represents concept that is important. Once it has been applied to one symbol, the information can be synthesized to include other symbols.

Er...actually, it is not a purely a cognitive function as you state. While there is some truth to that, there is hearing functionality in terms of "wiring". It has been observed that if one doesn't develop these processes early on, the brain is incapable at a later date to provide the same full functionality. This is the bit I mentioned that the brain reuses the hearing functionality for other things. The brain is a marvelous device but it does follow a developmental timeline that can't be messed with in terms of "normal" development.

In the case of missing the language development timeline, it is irretrievably lost and can't be fully restored no matter what one does. Yes, some of it can be restored but it is not way in the same sense as the hearing are capable. This squares with the facts of why those who never heard are the least successful group for CIs (getting one from the teen years or later on in life) and invariably not considered for them. If this weren't true, they would be doing them left and right and having great success for these people...but we know that is not true.

I can point to a similar analogy is universally understood. Take bilingual folks (to keep everybody focused I mean spoken language). It is well known that the best time to learn more than one language is when one is young. The best ones are those that learn two or more languages in households that spoke two or more languages. They can speak these languages with an ease of native speakers and it is very uncommon for people to learn another language in life with the same mastery of their native language. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

 

[jillio]

Er...actually, it is not a purely a cognitive function as you state. While there is some truth to that, there is hearing functionality in terms of "wiring". It has been observed that if one doesn't develop these processes early on, the brain is incapable at a later date to provide the same full functionality. This is the bit I mentioned that the brain reuses the hearing functionality for other things. The brain is a marvelous device but it does follow a developmental timeline that can't be messed with in terms of "normal" development.

In the case of missing the language development timeline, it is irretrievably lost and can't be fully restored no matter what one does. Yes, some of it can be restored but it is not way in the same sense as the hearing are capable. This squares with the facts of why those who never heard are the least successful group for CIs (getting one from the teen years or later on in life) and invariably not considered for them. If this weren't true, they would be doing them left and right and having great success for these people...but we know that is not true.

I can point to a similar analogy is universally understood. Take bilingual folks (to keep everybody focused I mean spoken language). It is well known that the best time to learn more than one language is when one is young. The best ones are those that learn two or more languages in households that spoke two or more languages. They can speak these languages with an ease of native speakers and it is very uncommon for people to learn another language in life with the same mastery of their native language. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

Yes, but you are assumingthat language = spoken language. The same developmental timeline can be used to guide acquisition of signed language. And the acquisition of language into a meningful symbol is a cognitive function. Auditory centers in the brain receive the sound only and interpret electical stimuli into sound. To interpret that sound into something meaningful is still a cognitive function, and is based in learning and experience. The same can be said of interpreting the symbols used in a visual language...it is a cognitive function. The visual processing centers in the brain interpret the individual components of a pattern into a recognizable object, or inthe case of sign language, handshape and movement. Once again, however, this is based on cognition. Just as one who hears can hear a sound produced in an unfamiliar language, and that sound is perceived, but meaningless.

 

[sr171soars]

Yes, but you are assumingthat language = spoken language. The same developmental timeline can be used to guide acquisition of signed language. And the acquisition of language into a meningful symbol is a cognitive function. Auditory centers in the brain receive the sound only and interpret electical stimuli into sound. To interpret that sound into something meaningful is still a cognitive function, and is based in learning and experience. The same can be said of interpreting the symbols used in a visual language...it is a cognitive function. The visual processing centers in the brain interpret the individual components of a pattern into a recognizable object, or inthe case of sign language, handshape and movement. Once again, however, this is based on cognition. Just as one who hears can hear a sound produced in an unfamiliar language, and that sound is perceived, but meaningless.

There are two issues here that is confusing the whole discussion. Cognitive processes involved with language and the means by which one is conveying the language. One can convey that visually (sign), auditory (spoken language), and tactically (sense of feel - take those that are deafblind).

In the case of the hearing functionality, spoken language is the correct assumption. Sign language relies on the visual functionality and that functionality is developed normally whether one learns sign or not (assuming one can see well enough). Similarly, those deaf and young learning sign language have an edge on those learning sign later on in life...no question about it. The processes involved with language from a cognitive perspective is irrelevant to whatever actual method of communication. It is as you say that symbols are involved and that is translated by the language media.

Cognitively, one can learn a language at any age but there are limitations to one ability to learn languages and its forms in any medium that forces the brain centers utilized for those languages/forms. This is what I'm getting at with spoken language and the timeline for the brain to properly develop the connections (synapses) required for mastery of one or more spoken languages. It has to be done while one is young as that is when the brain does it's best development for any given individual. This is a hard fact that cannot be changed regardless of the cognitive aspects.

This easily explains how the deaf learn written languages and can be just as good as an educated native speaker. The written language relies on the visual component not the hearing component. Obviously, they can and do go hand in hand for an individual doing both (both spoken and written which would be the normal situation) but it is not necessary.

 

[netrox]

Aha!!! This is the thread where many people say it is their right to implant their children but Spanish speaking families who wont learn English dont have the same rights. HMMM...something wrong with the picture?

The big difference is that they CAN learn English and they CHOSE to NOT learn in this country. This country is ruled by the US Constitution which is written in ENGLISH therefore we must learn English. I do NOT support bilingual education for Spanish kids (except for the transitation program). You move here, you learn English.

If I move to France, I'll learn French. That's my responsiblity and my DUTY to that country. Mexicans failed to fulfil their duty for this country (besides most of them who don't learn English are illegals).

Parents have the right NOT to implant their children. So, exactly what are you at now?

 

[R2D2]

T
Cognitively, one can learn a language at any age but there are limitations to one ability to learn languages and its forms in any medium that forces the brain centers utilized for those languages/forms. This is what I'm getting at with spoken language and the timeline for the brain to properly develop the connections (synapses) required for mastery of one or more spoken languages. It has to be done while one is young as that is when the brain does it's best development for any given individual. This is a hard fact that cannot be changed regardless of the cognitive aspects.

Yes exactly. Its been empirically demonstrated with a good number of studies that those who have had no or little exposure to listening to sounds in their early formative preschool years find it very difficult to learn a spoken language with a CI even past the age of 5. Development of spoken language goes hand in hand with the brain's ability to process sound. I'm surprised that this is even under dispute.

 

[R2D2]

No one has even managed to demonstrate that CI programs routinely turn down children from Spanish speaking families. I've never seen it listed as an exclusion on the candidacy criteria pages of various clinics' websites. If one particular clinic turns a child down for that reason, it doesn't mean they all do.

Here is a link to a CI program in New York that calls itself "bilingual" and they specialize in cochlear implants for both English and Spanish speaking patients.

Cochlear Implantation - New York Eye & Ear Infirmary

 

[Boult]

Newsletter 3

b) Prelingual profound deafness in children and central plasticity

In cases of prelingual deafness, anatomical and physiological lesions are found all along the hearing pathways though the actual cause of deafness is restricted to the inner ear. Sound deprivation is responsible for significant alterations in the brain stem and cerebral hemispheres. These alterations are due to cerebral plasticity which compensates for an anomalous situation. For example, in animals blinded at birth a kind of colonization of the visual cortex by the hearing function occurs (5). The younger the subject is, the more important the role plasticity has; with age, the phenomenomn of adaptation becomes irreversible. An early restoration of the hearing function is able to avoid the alterations created by sensorial deprivation. Treatment of deafness should therefore be carried out before that critical point after which anatomical alteration becomes definitive, even when the hearing function is restored. We were able to demonstrate this several years ago (6). In guinea pigs deafened at birth, after several weeks we observed atrophy of the hearing centres of the brain stem. Such atrophy can be largely avoided by a cochlear implant which can supply the cerebral centres with sound information necessary for their development. This preventative effect of the cochlear implant does not, however, occur in cases in which auditory stimulation is not supplied early enough, that is, before the critical age of 45 days in guinea pigs which corresponds in humans to aprox. 4-5 years old. If the restoration of the hearing function is too late, the cerebral structure is already altered by deafness and is incapable of modifying itself further for the eventual development of language. For this reason, we maintain that the restoration of the hearing function in children through cochlear implants should be considered as urgent. We can thus formulate three fundamental concept which are linked together: 1) The notion of a critical period in which the treatment of profound deafness with cochlear implants is truly effective; 2) The notion of a time limit, variable, but set well before the onset of adolescence, after which such treatment loses its efficacy; 3) The notion of urgent therapy.

 

[Boult]

Elsevier Article Locator

American Scientist Online - The Design and Function of Cochlear Implants

Research News in Speech Language and Hearing Disorders

Ear Surgery Information Center-Cochlear

BionicEar.com - Harmony Cochlear Implant by Advanced Bionics

Brain plasticity under cochlear implant stimulatio...[Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006] - PubMed Result

Hearing after Congenital Deafness: Central Auditory Plasticity and Sensory Deprivation -- Kral et al. 12 (8): 797 -- Cerebral Cortex

Deafness and Cerebral Plasticity -- Cordes and Wszolek 44 (9): 1440 -- The Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Signing With Your Deaf Baby

Regarding research in learning of language, there are extensive studies that indicate the "plasticity" of newborns' brains. That is, they are able to learn and develop neural pathways quickly and easily. As a child ages, there is less plasticity and less chance of establishing neural pathways in learning new information such as language. There are indications that as early as age three, children begin losing that plasticity. By age five, it is considered that a child who hasn't been exposed to language will probably always be at a disadvantage at learning language and other verbal processes such as spelling and writing.

Cochlear Implant Laboratory, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, ASU



There's lot more on that to post...
so
cochlear implant plasticity - Google Search

 

[Boult]

Again, the brain remains very plastic until the mean age of 22 or 23.

as child ages, the level of plasticity goes down.............. not "very"

it goes from HIGH to low like fuel cell eh

 

[Raykat]

I think I just opened a Pandora's box here...

I just cant get that out of my head about this issue with people who dont speak English in their homes and their children being turned down for a CI unless they learn English. It really bothers me and I dont know why.

why would it bother you, or jillio for that matter, when you are anti CI????

 

[jillio]

There are two issues here that is confusing the whole discussion. Cognitive processes involved with language and the means by which one is conveying the language. One can convey that visually (sign), auditory (spoken language), and tactically (sense of feel - take those that are deafblind).

In the case of the hearing functionality, spoken language is the correct assumption. Sign language relies on the visual functionality and that functionality is developed normally whether one learns sign or not (assuming one can see well enough). Similarly, those deaf and young learning sign language have an edge on those learning sign later on in life...no question about it. The processes involved with language from a cognitive perspective is irrelevant to whatever actual method of communication. It is as you say that symbols are involved and that is translated by the language media.

Cognitively, one can learn a language at any age but there are limitations to one ability to learn languages and its forms in any medium that forces the brain centers utilized for those languages/forms. This is what I'm getting at with spoken language and the timeline for the brain to properly develop the connections (synapses) required for mastery of one or more spoken languages. It has to be done while one is young as that is when the brain does it's best development for any given individual. This is a hard fact that cannot be changed regardless of the cognitive aspects.

This easily explains how the deaf learn written languages and can be just as good as an educated native speaker. The written language relies on the visual component not the hearing component. Obviously, they can and do go hand in hand for an individual doing both (both spoken and written which would be the normal situation) but it is not necessary.

But the auditory centers only transmit stimuli into sound. It is the langauge centers inthe brain that turnthat sound into something meaningful.. .this can be accomplished either auditorily or visually...it doesn't matter. The brain is able to recieve the sound stimuli at any time. It is the language centers that need stimulation within an optimal period. Auditory centers receive information only, they do not process it into meaningful input.

 

[jillio]

The big difference is that they CAN learn English and they CHOSE to NOT learn in this country. This country is ruled by the US Constitution which is written in ENGLISH therefore we must learn English. I do NOT support bilingual education for Spanish kids (except for the transitation program). You move here, you learn English.

If I move to France, I'll learn French. That's my responsiblity and my DUTY to that country. Mexicans failed to fulfil their duty for this country (besides most of them who don't learn English are illegals).

Parents have the right NOT to implant their children. So, exactly what are you at now?

A family in the United States is entitled to speak whatever language they choose in their home. The constitution says nothing about the language that anyone emigrating to America MUST learn. ASL is not English, and the Deaf are entitled to speak it in their homes. And yes, parents have the right NOT to implant their children...what is your point?

 

[jillio]

why would it bother you, or jillio for that matter, when you are anti CI????

Oh, my==are you ever mistaken. I am not anti CI. You obviously have not been reading many posts. I AM ANTO ORAL APPROACH ONLY. Unfortunately, the strict oral approach has seen a revival since the CI for children became an issue. Please, please, please refrain to jumpting to conclusions without all of the fact available.

 

[shel90]

The big difference is that they CAN learn English and they CHOSE to NOT learn in this country. This country is ruled by the US Constitution which is written in ENGLISH therefore we must learn English. I do NOT support bilingual education for Spanish kids (except for the transitation program). You move here, you learn English.

If I move to France, I'll learn French. That's my responsiblity and my DUTY to that country. Mexicans failed to fulfil their duty for this country (besides most of them who don't learn English are illegals).

Parents have the right NOT to implant their children. So, exactly what are you at now?

I have always said and still do...it is none of my business whether the parents want to implant their children or not. My concern is that their children get full access to language in order to develop language at a normal pace so when they arrive school, they are ready to read and write rather than having to learn sign language and put reading and writing on hold. That's my big concern and my only reason for my arguments.

This issue of Spanish speaking...I was referring to a CI center that deny children to be candidates because their families dont speak English at the home. I just wondered where does one draw the line cuz what the family does at home is their right and their business. Yes, the children will have to learn English but if their parents or family members dont have the time or feel more comfortable using their native language at home, the children with CIs are still getting an auditory input from the spoken language whether it is English or not. They are still able to excerise their auditory input and processing so that's what I thought that was the purpose of the CI. Didnt know the purpose of the CI was to master the English language only. That's my whole point.

I didnt know that English must be spoken at the home for some CI centers to accept children so if that's the case, what about deaf families who use sign language at home? That's all. I am not taking a stand either way..just wondering.

When something doesnt make sense especially after I have been preached about parents' rights and then to said in the opposite, I will question it.

 

[shel90]

why would it bother you, or jillio for that matter, when you are anti CI????

Where did I say that I was anti-CI? :roll:

I am against taking risks with children's language development by placing them in oral-only programs. Nothing to do with CIs...

 

[rockdrummer]

CIs at an very early age can be very benefical for speech and language development, so I'm not going to pass a negative judgement on the parents' choice.