Cochlear decison

[jillio]

Never mind.

Funny. Using the most hated phrase of deaf people on a hearing person. I love it!

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



it prevents language deprivation, but there is still the consequence of auditory pathways being converted to visual.

again, i am placing no value on the situation, but it is a consequence.

Why is it a problem when auditory pathways are used to process visual information?

You do realize, don't you, since you are trying to discuss neurological issues here, that when ASL is processed in the brain, it is processed simultaneously in the visual and the auditory centers. When spoken language is processed in the brain, only the auditory centers are used. So, ASL uses more of the brain than does verbal language. Use prevents atrophy.

i didn't say atrophy in the brain. I said that the pathways in the brain that are typically used for processing auditory information change to process visual information. And i never said that it was a bad thing, just that it is a consequence.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



a cochlear implant provides access to sound not the ability to speak. Deaf people have been learning to speak for hundreds of years, cochlear implants have changed the ability to hear.

are you somehow saying that there are not differences in the brain of a prelingually deaf adult vs a hearing person? If there is a difference, that would be a consequence of deafness, correct?

I've said that over and over and over. You are the one that objected to my statements regarding the areas of the brain that are stimulated and function differently in deaf people.:roll: Shall I go back and pull all of the posts where i said just that and you argued that it just wasn't true? Now you are trying to use what I have said millions of times to somehow prove I am wrong?

Okay...the purpose of the CI is to hear. Isn't that what you just said? Then why all the speech therapy and demands on the CI children to speak?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



it prevents language deprivation, but there is still the consequence of auditory pathways being converted to visual.

again, i am placing no value on the situation, but it is a consequence.

There is going to be a consequence of every action, event, lifestyle.....anything, really. Conversion of pathways isn't detrimental to one's well-being.

i never said it was negative, i simply said that it was a consequence. To say that their is no consequence to not choosing an implant in childhood is simply untrue. You can not implant as an adult and expect it to be the same as in childhood.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



i didn't say atrophy in the brain. I said that the pathways in the brain that are typically used for processing auditory information change to process visual information. And i never said that it was a bad thing, just that it is a consequence.

They don't change. They simply expand to include processing of information additionally to that which they are biologically created to process. It is called natural adaptation, and brains have been doing it for eons. It is a postive thing, not a negative consequence requiring surgical intervention.

"Medical consequence" by the very nature of the definition, is a negative. You kept saying these were medical consequences, and therefore, you were saying that they were negative.

 

[Mountain Man]

if a child has a profound hearing loss and is not given a cochlear implant and appropriate follow up at an early age, they will be unable to develop the ability to hear and understand spoken language through listening, even if they do receive a cochlear implant later.

So?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



i never said it was negative, i simply said that it was a consequence. To say that their is no consequence to not choosing an implant in childhood is simply untrue. You can not implant as an adult and expect it to be the same as in childhood.

There are consequences to choosing an implant for a child as well. And many of them have been determined to be negative. Those negative consequences are increased when the CI is used as an excuse to impose an oral only environment on a child.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



a cochlear implant provides access to sound not the ability to speak. Deaf people have been learning to speak for hundreds of years, cochlear implants have changed the ability to hear.

are you somehow saying that there are not differences in the brain of a prelingually deaf adult vs a hearing person? If there is a difference, that would be a consequence of deafness, correct?

I've said that over and over and over. You are the one that objected to my statements regarding the areas of the brain that are stimulated and function differently in deaf people.:roll: Shall I go back and pull all of the posts where i said just that and you argued that it just wasn't true? Now you are trying to use what I have said millions of times to somehow prove I am wrong?

Okay...the purpose of the CI is to hear. Isn't that what you just said? Then why all the speech therapy and demands on the CI children to speak?

so there is a consequence of being without auditory input for long periods...good, at least we agree on that.

CIs provide auditory input, and the point of aural rehab and av therapy is not speech but to use that input to understand spoken language.

 

[GrendelQ]

I've said that over and over and over. You are the one that objected to my statements regarding the areas of the brain that are stimulated and function differently in deaf people.:roll: Shall I go back and pull all of the posts where i said just that and you argued that it just wasn't true? Now you are trying to use what I have said millions of times to somehow prove I am wrong?

Okay...the purpose of the CI is to hear. Isn't that what you just said? Then why all the speech therapy and demands on the CI children to speak?

From what I've read here, 'all the speech therapy' and 'demands' on a child to speak were (and are) a large part of the lives of non-CI-using deaf children. That's not the case for my child. There's no speech therapy, no "demand" for her to speak: she does so naturally.

 

[Mountain Man]

a cochlear implant provides access to sound not the ability to speak. Deaf people have been learning to speak for hundreds of years, cochlear implants have changed the ability to hear.

are you somehow saying that there are not differences in the brain of a prelingually deaf adult vs a hearing person? If there is a difference, that would be a consequence of deafness, correct?

Yes, those are consequences. And the consequence of mopping your kitchen is that now the floor is clean.

You're saying "consequence" when what you really mean is "negative consequence". To that end, no, being deaf does not in and of itself negatively impact brain development.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

if a child has a profound hearing loss and is not given a cochlear implant and appropriate follow up at an early age, they will be unable to develop the ability to hear and understand spoken language through listening, even if they do receive a cochlear implant later.

So?

it is the consequence.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



so there is a consequence of being without auditory input for long periods...good, at least we agree on that.

CIs provide auditory input, and the point of aural rehab and av therapy is not speech but to use that input to understand spoken language.

No, there is not a negative consequence to being without auditory input. There is a negative consequence to being without language. So, you see, we are not in agreement. You are misunderstanding again.

Why would you want to correct a consequence that isn't negative, especially with surgical intervention and years of therapy?

Right. Speech. Spoken language is speech.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



it is the consequence.

So?

 

[Mountain Man]

it is the consequence.

So?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



so there is a consequence of being without auditory input for long periods...good, at least we agree on that.

CIs provide auditory input, and the point of aural rehab and av therapy is not speech but to use that input to understand spoken language.

No, there is not a negative consequence to being without auditory input. There is a negative consequence to being without language. So, you see, we are not in agreement. You are misunderstanding again.

Why would you want to correct a consequence that isn't negative, especially with surgical intervention and years of therapy?

Right. Speech. Spoken language is speech.

i don't know if you are being obtuse on purpose or just playing games. You know there is a difference between speech and spoken language.

 

[jillio]

I am getting the impression that someone is confusing the concept of "consequence" and the concept of "result of".

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



i don't know if you are being obtuse on purpose or just playing games. You know there is a difference between speech and spoken language.

I'm not playing games at all. Spoken language is speech. Without speech, there is no spoken lanugage.

If the goal is not speech, then there is no need for years of speech therapy. If you are demanding that your child receive speech therapy, then your goal is speech.

 

[Mountain Man]

I am getting the impression that someone is confusing the concept of "consequence" and the concept of "result of".

What fj seems to not understand is that consequences can be positive, negative, or neutral.

 

[jillio]

What fj seems to not understand is that consequences can be positive, negative, or neutral.

Correct. Cause and effect.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

I've said that over and over and over. You are the one that objected to my statements regarding the areas of the brain that are stimulated and function differently in deaf people.:roll: Shall I go back and pull all of the posts where i said just that and you argued that it just wasn't true? Now you are trying to use what I have said millions of times to somehow prove I am wrong?

Okay...the purpose of the CI is to hear. Isn't that what you just said? Then why all the speech therapy and demands on the CI children to speak?

From what I've read here, 'all the speech therapy' and 'demands' on a child to speak were (and are) a large part of the lives of non-CI-using deaf children. That's not the case for my child. There's no speech therapy, no "demand" for her to speak: she does so naturally.

i agree with you grendel.

my child was very late implanted. She missed out on 5 years of access to spoken language. Because of that we have placed her in a very (spoken) language rich environment, so she can have have more exposure to the language she missed out on for all those years. If she had been implanted at one, our situation would be very different. She would have likely picked up spoken language easily and we would have probably placed her in an environment where she would be immersed in our other target language, ASL.