Cochlear decison

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Just trying to dispel the notion that speech therapy always equates with drill and a structured format. Our s&L therapist had the biggest collection of games and toys one could imagine and my wife would use trips to places like the beach and to the zoo to provide wonderful and fun experiences along with the opportunity to immerse our daughter in language.

Even games and fun outings can be part of an intensive speech therapy regimen, but to suggest that it's nothing but games and fun outings is, again, very misleading.

do you actually live an av lifestyle? If not, how would you know what it is like? The parents i know who are av simply talk, all the time. They don't drill or do "therapy" at home, they live and talk to their children. That is how a child learns language. You go to the zoo and:
"see the zebra? Wow, he is much bigger than i thought! Look at his mane. The hair looks like bristles. He has lots of black and white stripes. Oooh, he just swished that fly away with his tail. What is he eating? Hay. That's right. Zebras eat hay. Do you think they live where it is hot or cold?...."

that's it, talk, not drill. That is why people do av rather than old school, traditional speech. It is about language, not drills.

 

[Mountain Man]

I know several families who chose not to do formal speech therapy.

When you say no "formal speech therapy", do you mean no speech therapy whatsoever (even if it's just the parents doing it on their own)?

But even if you mean zero speech therapy, that's still not the norm, and any parent is misinformed if they have their child implanted with the expectation that they will be one of the outliers who doesn't require therapy.

Fact: the vast majority of children with cochlear implants require some form of speech therapy. I'm honestly not sure why you and your ilk are so eager to downplay the truth. What's your game here?

And to show you I'm not just making up crap (as I suspect you are), here's a direct quote from Cochlear Americas' promotional literature:

"(Re)habilitation for children post cochlear implantation is an accepted part of the implant process. Indeed, many cochlear implant clinics feel it is so important that they require parents of young children to sign an agreement laying out family responsibilities for rehabilitation after surgery. A young child with a cochlear implant and her family require a comprehensive habilitation program to help her utilize the auditory signal and to naturally integrate the various components of communication including listening, speech, language, reading and thinking."
​

http://www.cochlear.com/files/assets/ci_rehab_not_just_for_kids.pdf

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



and that is not how therapy is done for young children today. You read books, tell stories and play. It is not drill.

one speech therpy session for my daughter when she was young was reading "brown bear, brown bear, what do you see" and then having her make the book herself and then having her "read" it back. It targeted auditory comprehension of two word phrases (her listening to the therapist say what was next and understanding and repeating it back.)

that is just the first example i came up with. There are many others. The point of therapy with young ci kids is learning language, not articulation. Most kids implanted young hear well enough to develop great artic without focus on it.

It is still a directive exercise. It is still a contrived atmosphere for learning language, not the child directed, passive manner in which children acquire language.

The implications for later language usage are many.

 

[jillio]

When you say no "formal speech therapy", do you mean no speech therapy whatsoever (even if it's just the parents doing it on their own)?

But even if you mean zero speech therapy, that's still not the norm, and any parent having their child implanted with the expectation that they will be one of the outliers who doesn't require therapy has been misinformed.

Fact: the vast majority of children with cochlear implants require some form of speech therapy. I'm honestly not sure why you and your ilk are so eager to downplay the truth. What's your game here?

And to show you I'm not just making up crap (as I suspect you are), here's a direct quote from Cochlear Americas' promotional literature:

"(Re)habilitation for children post cochlear implantation is an accepted part of the implant process. Indeed, many cochlear implant clinics feel it is so important that they require parents of young children to sign an agreement laying out family responsibilities for rehabilitation after surgery. A young child with a cochlear implant and her family require a comprehensive habilitation program to help her utilize the auditory signal and to naturally integrate the various components of communication including listening, speech, language, reading and thinking."
​

http://www.cochlear.com/files/assets/ci_rehab_not_just_for_kids.pdf

Many studies have shown that the mothers of children in an oral environment are far more directive and controlling of the child's every activity, holding many implications for negative impact on the parent/child relationship and also for future use of language.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



and that is not how therapy is done for young children today. You read books, tell stories and play. It is not drill.

one speech therpy session for my daughter when she was young was reading "brown bear, brown bear, what do you see" and then having her make the book herself and then having her "read" it back. It targeted auditory comprehension of two word phrases (her listening to the therapist say what was next and understanding and repeating it back.)

that is just the first example i came up with. There are many others. The point of therapy with young ci kids is learning language, not articulation. Most kids implanted young hear well enough to develop great artic without focus on it.

so, there's no need to teach speech articulation to most kids implanted young? You're saying most kids implanted young can learn to speak very well without any speech therapy in speech articulation?

i am saying that the average child implanted at age one would have weekly av sessions until they reach age appropriate levels at age three. They would develop age appropriate articulation developmentally like a hearing child would, simply through listening.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



do you actually live an av lifestyle? If not, how would you know what it is like? The parents i know who are av simply talk, all the time. They don't drill or do "therapy" at home, they live and talk to their children. That is how a child learns language. You go to the zoo and:
"see the zebra? Wow, he is much bigger than i thought! Look at his mane. The hair looks like bristles. He has lots of black and white stripes. Oooh, he just swished that fly away with his tail. What is he eating? Hay. That's right. Zebras eat hay. Do you think they live where it is hot or cold?...."

that's it, talk, not drill. That is why people do av rather than old school, traditional speech. It is about language, not drills.

And you don't see a problem with simply talking, talking, talking at the child all the time?

 

[rick48]

Even games and fun outings can be part of an intensive speech therapy regimen, but to suggest that it's nothing but games and fun outings is, again, very misleading.

Nowhere as misleading as your attempt to label all speech and language therapy as misleading. You can parse your words all you like but a scare tactic is still a scare tactic.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



i am saying that the average child implanted at age one would have weekly av sessions until they reach age appropriate levels at age three. They would develop age appropriate articulation developmentally like a hearing child would, simply through listening.

IF they reach age appropriate levels by age three. There is no guarantee that they will. There is no guarantee, in fact, that they will receive enough benefit from the CI to develop spoken language, or to function auditorily alone at all.

What do you say to the research that shows that early gains are lost, and then lags become evident after age 7?

 

[jillio]

Nowhere as misleading as your attempt to label all speech and language therapy as misleading. You can parse your words all you like but a scare tactic is still a scare tactic.

You are the scariest tactic we have seen around here for awhile.

Odd that you and FJ are back at the exact same time, again.

 

[rick48]

And you don't see a problem with simply talking, talking, talking at the child all the time?

It is talking with your child, not "at" them. One of the great by products of my wife's approach is that today we still talk with each other (ok some times text).

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



and that is not how therapy is done for young children today. You read books, tell stories and play. It is not drill.

one speech therpy session for my daughter when she was young was reading "brown bear, brown bear, what do you see" and then having her make the book herself and then having her "read" it back. It targeted auditory comprehension of two word phrases (her listening to the therapist say what was next and understanding and repeating it back.)

that is just the first example i came up with. There are many others. The point of therapy with young ci kids is learning language, not articulation. Most kids implanted young hear well enough to develop great artic without focus on it.

It is still a directive exercise. It is still a contrived atmosphere for learning language, not the child directed, passive manner in which children acquire language.

The implications for later language usage are many.

actually, it was not teaching the language in that session but instead working on auditory comprehension of two critical elements in a relatively closed set (any color combined with any animal).

 

[jillio]

It is talking with your child, not "at" them. One of the great by products of my wife's approach is that today we still talk with each other (ok some times text).

No, it is talking AT your child. It is parent directed. It is totallly opposite of the way a child is meant to acquire language. And that fact holds implications not just for future language use, but also for negative impact on the parent/child relationship.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



actually, it was not teaching the language in that session but instead working on auditory comprehension of two critical elements in a relatively closed set (any color combined with any animal).

What? Auditory comprehension IS teaching language.:roll:

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

I know several families who chose not to do formal speech therapy.

When you say no "formal speech therapy", do you mean no speech therapy whatsoever (even if it's just the parents doing it on their own)?

But even if you mean zero speech therapy, that's still not the norm, and any parent is misinformed if they have their child implanted with the expectation that they will be one of the outliers who doesn't require therapy.

Fact: the vast majority of children with cochlear implants require some form of speech therapy. I'm honestly not sure why you and your ilk are so eager to downplay the truth. What's your game here?

And to show you I'm not just making up crap (as I suspect you are), here's a direct quote from Cochlear Americas' promotional literature:

"(Re)habilitation for children post cochlear implantation is an accepted part of the implant process. Indeed, many cochlear implant clinics feel it is so important that they require parents of young children to sign an agreement laying out family responsibilities for rehabilitation after surgery. A young child with a cochlear implant and her family require a comprehensive habilitation program to help her utilize the auditory signal and to naturally integrate the various components of communication including listening, speech, language, reading and thinking."
​

http://www.cochlear.com/files/assets/ci_rehab_not_just_for_kids.pdf

yes, the average child will need language immersion and short term therapy. Most kids implanted young are age appropriate by 5, usually by 3. Parents attend weekly av sessions to learn the skills to immerse their child in language. Most children do not require long term, dozens of years, of therapy and very few require "drills" and artic therapy.

 

[Mountain Man]

do you actually live an av lifestyle?

Both of my hearing children are involved in speech therapy, so, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I've seen the eye rolls when I have them repeat something until they get it right.

Also, try opening your eyes and read the experiences of Deaf adults that are posted in any number of threads here. Are their experiences somehow "wrong"? Did their parents do a poor job raising them and you'd never make those kinds of mistakes with your own child?

"see the zebra? Wow, he is much bigger than i thought! Look at his mane. The hair looks like bristles. He has lots of black and white stripes. Oooh, he just swished that fly away with his tail. What is he eating? Hay. That's right. Zebras eat hay. Do you think they live where it is hot or cold?...."

that's it, talk, not drill. That is why people do av rather than old school, traditional speech. It is about language, not drills.

Oh, please, it's more involved than that, and you know it. If it was simple as just talking your child's ear off then speech therapists would be out of work.

It's more like:

"See the zebra?"
"Yeth! I thee the zebwa!"
"Zee-BRA."
"Zee-BWA."
"Try feeling it in the back of your throat, like a dog growling: R... R..."
"Ehr... ehr..."
"That's good honey! Now say 'zee-BRA'."
"Ze-behr-a."
"Very good! What's the zebra eating?"
"He's eating gwass!"
"No-"
"I mean g-ehr-wass."
"That's close. You're a good talker!"

I've been there. I know what it's like.

 

[rick48]

How interesting you would use that choice of words. Do we not have another thread going on right now in which Coolspyergirl would discuss how tired she is of speech therapy (after 15 years of it) and she has a CI.

I like that she can write from her own experience, and not of that of a biased parent who doesn't actually experience the speech therapy themselves.

Those are not my choice of words but those of an obviously biased and uniformed person who chooses to use scare tactics and has no idea about the post-ci rehabilitation process.

Yes, not only am I aware of that thread but I offered my advice to her as to how to end the therapy that she no longer wants to do by sharing my experiences with my child.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Wirelessly posted



yes, the average child will need language immersion and short term therapy. Most kids implanted young are age appropriate by 5, usually by 3. Parents attend weekly av sessions to learn the skills to immerse their child in language. Most children do not require long term, dozens of years, of therapy and very few require "drills" and artic therapy.

So, you're saying, in other words, that most kids implanted young are so successful that they require no therapy in speech articulation after age of 5? They can speak and hear that well?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



yes, the average child will need language immersion and short term therapy. Most kids implanted young are age appropriate by 5, usually by 3. Parents attend weekly av sessions to learn the skills to immerse their child in language. Most children do not require long term, dozens of years, of therapy and very few require "drills" and artic therapy.

Got anything to support that claim?

What about the research that shows that early gains are soon replaced by lags?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



actually, it was not teaching the language in that session but instead working on auditory comprehension of two critical elements in a relatively closed set (any color combined with any animal).

What? Auditory comprehension IS teaching language.:roll:

no, we are using language she already knows to help her build her auditory memory. She may have been able to understand those words in isolation but through that activity she had to listen for two critical elements within a longer phrase, which is much more difficult than picking out a single word from a closed set of, say, 6. We would use language that she already knew, receptively as well as expressively, to grow her auditory skills.

 

[jillio]

So, you're saying, in other words, that most kids implanted young are so successful that they require no therapy in speech articulation after age of 5? They can speak and hear that well?

I don't know what that poster is trying to say, but I can definately say that the research does not support anything close to that conclusion.