Designing A Hearing Baby

[deafskeptic]

If they have all the tools in their respective toolboxes working properly then yes it will make learning to read and write easier but you knew that already with your wise ass remark.

See I am married to a teacher who always makes the time to make certain she knows her kids and I have observed her on the phone at night on her time making the calls that need to be made and yes her hubby and kids not only understand but respect and admire her dedication. So stick that one somewhere and I think even you can figure out where.

You were being unreasonable when you asked if Shel90 to find out why those CIs failed. Shel is not kidding when she says she'd have to drive to those CI centers; you ever try to call an automated system via relay? I tell you trying to call an automated system via relay is a nightmare. Others would really have to go out of their way to make calls on Shel's behalf. Shel's main job making sure her kids learn to read and write; it is hoped the parents have given the kids the most important tool of all: a strong first language.

As for your wife being a teacher and all great and I'm glad you were able to raise a fine daughter and I do think you did an excellent job.

As for being a teacher, I think Shel answered that better than I ever could.

 

[R2D2]

I will allow that my reaction to the fact you weren't wearing your CI was very similar to Audiofuzzy's but then you mentioned the headaches that you were having and all of a sudden I'm thinking you sound like Smithr; well, no wonder this CI isn't working out for you.

I kept wondering why you and smithr and why not me? Does this happen to late deafened? I'd be most interested in hearing from them. Does this happen when you wear the CI or does this happen even when you're not wearing the speech processor and a zillion other questions. I don't think it's good idea to ask you a zillion questions though. I'm not a doctor and your doctor and the audiologist should be the ones asking the questions - not me.

I seem to remember Puyo describing his auditory history once and when I read what he had said, I recall being unsurprised that he hadn't done well with the CI. I'm not sure if I remember this correctly but he said that even though he was born deaf, he didn't get hearing aids until he was 5 years old. can you correct me on this Puyo?

I have a friend who also didn't have his hearing stimulated until a late age and he got headaches too when he got a CI. In his case, the brain couldn't cope with the sound input because the neurons for hearing hadn't developed properly at a young age. He turned it off after one year.

Which is why essentially, such people with minimally stimulated hearing don't really have a choice to get CIs as adults as they are going to get pretty poor results generally.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Just stated that I have worked with children who werent able to get benefits from their CIs. If they were, they would respond to their names being called, respond to loud sounds and etc. Now, if anyone should do research, it should be them but they seem to have accepted it and now want their children to learn ASL due to their inability to develop oral skills.

Same with my brother and I...we both have the same degree of hearing loss...I was able to benefit from my HAs while he couldnt. To this day, we still dont know why. Sometimes things just happen for a reason.

Nothing to do with any opinions of mine..it is an objective statement based on my experiences. I cant speak for the children ..they are the ones who wear the CIs not me, not their audis, and not their parents. However, due to them being language delayed, they are unable to describe their experiences with their CIs.

Just seems like people got mad at me when I couldnt state the reasons for why some of the children werent able to get benefits from their CIs. Instead, I got accused of this or that and I just think it is a comedy.

"some people" meaning me right?
how many times do I have to explain to you I didn't object to your unability to STATE the reasons why some children lack CI benefits.
I objected to the BIASED WAY you did that in some posts. meaning in some posts you didn't just "state" the information, you did it in in certain light that implied the CI is just one big c*ap while in these particular discussion it was most important to be objective and unbiased. that was my beef with you, nothing else.
as for:

Same with my brother and I...we both have the same degree of hearing loss...I was able to benefit from my HAs while he couldnt.

it would require a lot of information both medical and psychological to find out why.
The same thing happened with me and my brother. But I know why my brother was unable to receive as much benefit from HA as me- because I was 100% immersed in hearing world and my hearing loss was slower, a LOT slower than his. Was your brother's upbringing exactly the same as yours? anyway, how would you know - even subtle differences could mean a lot.
was he as dedicated to use hearing and speech as you? does he has exactly the same type of hearing loss as you?
even IQ can make a difference in such matters.

When I ask the audi or their parents why werent they unable to get benefits from their CIs, they tell me that they dont know.

But there IS an explanation, it just have to be found.
it could be that these children have type of hearing loss that after all is not suitable for CI. most likely they do not receive as much therapy and exercises as they should despite what the parents say.. could be their CI is not as well programmed as it should be according to their needs.
could be the children themselves psychologically reject the CI and their hearing is set to "selective". could be hundred other things.
and finally, what age the kids were implanted? Cloggy's graph shows clearly how much age matters. more than anything else. that alone could be an explanation for failure.

I am saying just because nobody knows doesn't mean "CI just don't work" - there must be a reason, and of course NO it's not your responsibility to find out why, I never said it is.


I will continue later on. sorry for the mistakes, too, I have no time for correction. hope you'll get the gist of it anyway.

Fuzzy

 

[Maria]

Maria

I don't know if you are being stubborn, or you don't get what I mean. Let's drop it.
the only thing I still want to know is "How do you know HA works better for you than CI?" Please answer.

Fuzzy

Well, you are still very stubborn for refusin' to listen since I've asked you a few times to RE-READ my WHOLE posts. There are some answers in my posts. I don't need to answer again once it's already in there. I know you want me to answer right here which is easier for you rather than for you to go over to my WHOLE posts to read.

 

[jillio]

Yeh, those spanish researchers must be stupid, and you are correct...
Just a questions: What's the percentage of "children who have been provided a rich linguistic environment and have been givent he opportunity to develop language, and all its implications, in both manual and auditory/oral forms" ???

And you are now assuming that these children were not in the study.... perhaps they were in the study... the children that got Ci later....

How is is that you suddenly decide that THAT is the deciding factor. Based on what?

You can't find any arguments against the study, and so you start making assumptions and preaching how well deaf children can do without CI.
THAT is not the issue here.
I was showing why a parent would make the decision to implant as early as possible.



How did you pull that one out of your hat?
I agree it's immensly important, but why do you assume that that is not accounted for in the research. YOu are actually saying:
The 0-3 year olds are children with parents that support them, and the rest were all children that were basically neglected by their parents.
In effect, the study sucks... just because you say so....

Why do you have such a low opinion of researchers that provide data that supports the opposite of your ideas?

I'd like to see the answer to flip's question. I agree with him regarding his assessment of oralists abilities to read and comprehend reseach articles. Not only do you seem to be easily confused by the articles, but also by the posts regarding the articles. Exactly why is that?

 

[jillio]

Cough.. Im sorry... you think you know more about CI while YOU have no CI for yourself... Oh nice try!

There aren't many audis or ENTs that have a CI either. Yet you trust their knowledge.

 

[jillio]

If they have all the tools in their respective toolboxes working properly then yes it will make learning to read and write easier but you knew that already with your wise ass remark.

See I am married to a teacher who always makes the time to make certain she knows her kids and I have observed her on the phone at night on her time making the calls that need to be made and yes her hubby and kids not only understand but respect and admire her dedication. So stick that one somewhere and I think even you can figure out where.

Your wife is a special education teacher, not a teacher of the deaf. We are discussingthe implications of CI and deaf education. Try to keep up.

 

[jillio]

Puyo Piyo

BINGO!! what does that tell you?
it tells ME, the CI generally does NOT cause all the symptoms YOU experience. Therefore, the problem MIGHT be with you, not with the CI. Do you get what I am trying to say? again, that does NOT mean it's your FAULT in any way. like you said, it's just how your body reacted to CI, and nobody's to blame. when I wrote "the problem lies with you" - I was looking for explanation, not blame.



Exactly!!! maybe you were born super sensitive, and of course it's not your fault, nevertheless that is what has caused your severe reaction to the CI.
that is what I was saying all along.



As I've said. I don't BLAME you, but you have to accept the fact that thru no fault of your own you were not wearing CI as much as you should have, and not worked as much as you should have in order to receive the best benefits, okay? thru no fault of your own.
the fact is you didn't have chance to use it to its full potential - I think you will agree with this simple fact.
maybe if you weren't having these problems, you would by now hear more and better.
again, nobody's to blame. it just happened- you were implanted, your body didn't like the implant, so you couldn't use it as you could have. end of story...

Everyday wearing my CI? With numb inside my mouth, headaches attack every hour or two, feel irrogrant by my families, my nerves going up dramatically? Tsk tsk tsk I don't think so, I prefer to wear it when I am expecting the sounds to come up


As I've said- I am only stating facts about CI - how do you know what would happen if you could wear it everyday? that has nothing to do with your unfortunate symptoms, or family.

Sorry, my body is part of me, my brain and my body agree to reject wearing CI everyday.


That have completely NOTHING to do with what I wrote. I was writing about human speech and language development, not you.



It doesn't matter what situation - it is always the attitude and communication skills that play the role in relationship. If my son was sure this is what he needs and decided to change his gender, I would respect it.

Maria


I don't know if you are being stubborn, or you don't get what I mean. Let's drop it.
the only thing I still want to know is "How do you know HA works better for you than CI?" Please answer.



Liebling


It is not his daughter's fault that HA does not work, but it's not the HA fault either. But it is his daughter's hearing loss that cause HA to NOT work.



This is just the matter of English.
When I reffer to Puyo, a human, I use the word "problem", because obviously it's not his fault that his CI is causing these symptoms.
But at the same time, it's not CI's fault either. Other people use CI with no problems that Puyo have. So, if CI does not cause other people numbness in the nose and mouth, and headaches, then perhaps it's Puyo's problem, not CI. that of course does not mean it's Puyo's fault that it is like that.

Then, when I am talking about a CAR - it's obvious that whoever causes a car accident is at FAULT. (unless of course the car suddenly broke)
That doesn't mean just because Puyo "caused" a car accident, he also "caused CI accident".
I was just trying to demonstrate by this example that maybe it's not the problem with *whatever* but with the person. Hope you get it.

just the language matter.



I am sorry, but what are you talking about? I am talking about people who had NO USE for HA, but can now hear with CI.



No, I don't think so, and it's complicated matter.



CI is more advanced technologically than HA, period. It has nothing to do with parent's support and willingness to work.



If the boys are HEARING - no they rather don't miss because of the parents deafness. unless they are not exposed to any sound.
If the boys are born deaf- then even if the parents are hearing - yes they do miss hearing sounds thus learning to recognize them.

Don't confuse two things: language development and ability to hear and speak.



because they COULD HEAR. it only matters when the child is born deaf, not when the parents are deaf.


Cloggy


It IS frustrating, isn't it.
I don't get it either. Here we have a proof and an EASY, clear explanation like a graph right in our faces, and yet it seem like some people are blind to it. Why is that is beyond me.

I also don't understand why nobody is getting the clue from this:

The most intensive period of speech and language development for humans is during the first three years of life, a period when the brain is developing and maturing. These skills appear to develop best in a world that is rich with sounds, sights, and consistent exposure to the speech and language of others.


There is increasing evidence suggesting that there are "critical periods" for speech and language development in infants and young children.

The ability to learn a language will be more difficult, and perhaps less efficient or effective, if these critical periods are allowed to pass without early exposure to a language.

What more is needed to understand why these graphs show clearly why the best CI results show youngest children?
and what more than this and graph together is needed to explain why early implantation matters so much?

Fuzzy

Yeppers. EARLY EXPOSURE TO A LANGUAGE! Now you get it. Early exposure to language has absolutely nothing to do with CI. A child can receive early exposure to ASL as their L1 language, and that facilitates learning of the L2 language. Unfortunately, you equate language with spoken English, and therefore are unable to see how your statements support a bi-bi environment despite your oralist attitudes.

 

[jillio]

"If you concentrate only on the medicalized, pathological perspective of deafness and see the only benefit as being provided to the understanding and development of oral language skills, then these statistics and conclusions will hold up."

That is a misleading statement as the statistics and conclusions will hold up across the board. They are testing the subjects' ability to hear bi-syllabic words without visual clues (i.e. lip reading, manual language, etc). Unless you have discovered something new, fluency in sign language is not going to assist you in a speech recognition test where no visual clues are allowed.



"However, if you conduct the same research using children who have been provided a rich linguistic environment and have been givent he opportunity to develop language, and all its implications, in both manual and auditory/oral forms, you will see that the "benefits" gap is narrowed."


Whether that is true or not is irrelevent and not what is being tested. Likewise, if you allow the subjects to utilize their lip/speech reading skills the benefits gap will narrow as well.


"The deciding factor is what the expectation of the CI is. Is it expected that the child implanted will become fully oral and function as a hearing child linguistically and educationsally and socially, or is the expectation that the CI will wprovide sound perception?"

Not true, whatever the parents "expectation" of the ci is or is not has nothing to do with their child's performance in a bisyllabic open set word recognition without visual clues test. However, the parents' active involvement in their child's use of the ci post-implant seeing that they received proper speech and language therapy will play a significant role in their child's performance.


"For the parents who have already taken steps to insure that their child is provided with an environment that allows for language acquisition from birth despite the fact that the child is deaf, and expects that the child will receive some benefit of sound perception, yet continues to focus on that child's needs for language development, the CI can provide a great deal of benefit."

I agree and that is exactly what we provided for our daughter and today the results speak for themselves.



"For the parent that does nothing, waiting on the implant to be done prior to attending totheir child's developmental needs, the implant does not provide as great a benefit. The difference ios not in the time of implantation regarding the language delays, but of the parents apathy in attending totheir child's needs from the very beginning."


Also agree as to the parents' apathy and I suspect that those are types of children winding up in deaf schools similar to Shel's. However, the importance in the need to implant as close as possible to the onset of deafness is not minimalized or trivialized by your use of cliches and anti-oral rhetoric. It is a fact that does not change no matter how much you try to discredit it.

Where I part company with you is your not so subtle attempt to paint with a broad brush all parents who chose to raise their children oral only and with a cochlear implant. To label such parents as "apathetic" and choosing to "do nothing" demonstates a lack of understanding as to what exactly it takes to raise a child with a cochlear implant in an oral environment.

It is also indicative of your blinders approach to seeing any path other than the one you choose for your son as a viable one.

Someone much wiser than I once summed it up best saying that while we may have chosen different paths for our children to walk we have the same destination in mind.

Take a course in research methods. Perhaps then you will be able to use some analytical skills when you try to understand the research you attempt to read.

 

[Buffalo]

There aren't many audis or ENTs that have a CI either. Yet you trust their knowledge.

very gooooood point!

 

[Buffalo]

Yeppers. EARLY EXPOSURE TO A LANGUAGE! Now you get it. Early exposure to language has absolutely nothing to do with CI. A child can receive early exposure to ASL as their L1 language, and that facilitates learning of the L2 language. Unfortunately, you equate language with spoken English, and therefore are unable to see how your statements support a bi-bi environment despite your oralist attitudes.

The fact that kids with CI still need speech therapy tells me that CI doesn't give perfect hearing. I don't have CI but I do have first hand experiences with speech therapy with sign language and without sign language. I get more done in speech therapy with sign language.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

*have a cup of Ginger tea and reading the whole posts since my last post of yesterday*

I must say that I am total surprised that flip's question with article are being ignored or skip.

Re-read flip's question and article, then share your view on flip's article with us please.

http://www.alldeaf.com/839423-post299.html

flip, I am not surprised after read the article, you provided.

 

[Maria]

*have a cup of Ginger tea and reading the whole posts since my last post of yesterday*

I must say that I am total surprised that flip's question with article are being ignored or skip.

Re-read flip's question and article, then share your view on flip's article with us please.

http://www.alldeaf.com/839423-post299.html

flip, I am not surprised after read the article, you provided.

If, the article is not related to this topic " Designing A Hearing Baby " concernin' to CI/HAs/and ASL, then Flip may create his own thread about the article outside of this thread.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Sometimes I don't get it. Many people have shown articles showing that there is a huge difference between early and late implantation for profoundly deaf children.
I guess you just refuse to read them, or just do not accept them.
Sure we learn all the time but that is not the same as the "window of oppurtunity" for children to learn speech.

For example this graph, showing the huge difference between children implanted between 1 and 3 and above 6 years of age.....

And when parents want their children to choose themself, the ae of the child will probably be beyond 14 years.
Do you see the difference between the decision to implant asap and implant later...

(From this study)

I saw and read 4 pictures last night and has no time to post. I am here in the office to response your post.

Yes I remember those pictures, you posted at several threads last year.

Yes I can see that learn to hear the sound and speech at early development is mainly important to you.

Let me to share an example:
Your daughter and other child have same level of hearing loss and have CI at early age. Your daughter's learning development skill is quickly than other child. How? Can you explain me why your daughter and other child are different? Where it come from?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

The most intensive period of speech and language development for humans is during the first three years of life, a period when the brain is developing and maturing. These skills appear to develop best in a world that is rich with sounds, sights, and consistent exposure to the speech and language of others.

Well, the article is obviously based on a hearing human being not the deaf one.
And in this case the development means hearing and speech, not sign language or other means of communication.
Altough the same priniciple could be applied to the non -audio-verbal development.

What matters most is, whatever the means of communication the crucial steps of development happen before the age of THREE, and past that age further development is delayed or not possible anymore.


If the child at this critical stage of development is not able to HEAR, and thus imitate the sounds it hear, then it will not develop these skills
and if some development does will take place at the later age these skills will be inferior compared to what they could be if developed in the first three years of life,
while the BRAIN IS MATURING = STILL MAKING NEURAL CONNECTIONS.

BTW, this mean both hearing and deaf child will develop similar way - except the hearing child will learn to recognize sounds and learn to speak whereas the deaf child will be the developing and perfecting sign and other visual language.

And as the hearing child will not know the sign language such the deaf child will not know sound and speech.
(let's not confuse the matter with HAs and Cis right now)

And while the hearing child will learn to sign realtively easy and quickly the deaf child will have much harder time with learning to recognize sounds and develop speech. it's probably because sign language is an visual language, and neither has visual impairment.

also, it's my observation that the hearing person is able to learn 100% sign language at virtually any time, whereas the deaf person is unable to hear certain sounds for ever.


Fuzzy

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If, the article is not related to this topic " Designing A Hearing Baby " concernin' to CI/HAs/and ASL, then Flip may create his own thread about the article outside of this thread.

No, some people beleive in professional study over real experience situtation. Yes, it do relate your thread.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Exactly, Liebling. If you are unable to apply what you have read in a book or heard from a doctor or audiologist to real life situations, the information is not really education. Life rarely shows the same results that are obtained in a laboratory. The key is in being able to apply the results obtained in the laboratory sucessfully to life.

Exactly

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Sounds reasonable enough; after all it's only finding out why those kids' CIs failed that's important. Learning how to read and write isn't important and your kid and hubby will understand, right?

Did you know what Literacy is?

Did you know that million hearing people have the problem to reading and writing skill?

Is it important to train the children to hear the sounds and speech over reading and writing skill?

I rather to have my children to learn to read and writing more than speech and hear sounds. Sure, I would want my deaf children to train speech and hear the sounds but one to two hours should be limit.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Re-read flip's question and article, then share your view on flip's article with us please.

yes I read that article, but how do I know this is too is not yet another sloppy finding???
how do I know if Dr. Ioannidis was indeed himself such careful and correct in his research?
certain margin for errors is indeed unavoidable in such researches, for reason explained in the article but on the whole we have rules and regulations that we go by which more or less can be trusted.

the graph that Cloggy posted is different in this aspect that it is IMO rather hard to falsify the stats when there is not that many implanted people yet, both children and adults,
that is why I rather feel it can be trusted.


Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I rather to have my children to learn to read and writing more than speech and hear sounds.

Liebling, that's not what it is about.
The whole point is about CI- that if you want the best benefits from it you should implant before the three years of age, for the reason Cloggy showed you in the graph.


Fuzzy