Earlier cochlear implant, better language

Miss-Delectable

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,164
Reaction score
6
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060630-055238-3403r

The earlier a deaf infant or toddler receives a cochlear implant, the better his or her spoken language skills at age 3 and a half is, find U.S. researchers.

Johanna Grant Nicholas of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and Ann E. Geers of the Southwestern Medical School at the University of Texas at Dallas tested the spoken language skills of 76 children, all 3 and a half years old, who had cochlear implants and compared those results to the length of time each child had his or her implant.

They found that with increased implant time, children's vocabulary was richer, their sentences longer and more complex and their use of irregular words more frequent.

"Ninety percent of children born deaf are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness," said Nicholas. "They don't know how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children. Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language."

The findings are reported in the June issue of Ear and Hearing.
 
Thank you so much. It s proven. I am happy that I have told the truth as always. It s totally wrong for them to push those d/Deaf children into Hearing world only and refuse to learn ASL. No wonder many deafies have a trouble with their literacy that hasn't stopped yet. Sighs! No true communication for d/Deaf children who cannot hear everything.

NO difference between HA and CI that people are trying to pressure about oral method issue as well as it s a must have the Hearing people s rules over us d/Deaf people.. Jeez!

Thats power and control and attitude as usual.

Also there is no two ways street. Bingo!

Have a good day! ;)
Sweetmind
 
Last edited:
Sweetmind said:
Thank you so much. It s proven. I am happy that I have told the truth as always. It s totally wrong for them to push those d/Deaf children into Hearing world only and refuse to learn ASL. No wonder many deafies have a trouble with their literacy that hasn't stopped yet. Sighs! No true communication for d/Deaf children who cannot hear everything.

NO difference between HA and CI that people are trying to pressure about oral method issue as well as it s a must have the Hearing people s rules over us d/Deaf people.. Jeez!

Thats power and control and attitude as usual.

Also there is no two ways street. Bingo!

Have a good day! ;)
Sweetmind
Click to expand...
You statement does not make sense and does not reflect what the article is saying...

The article is saying that the longer implant time (meaning implanted earlier) make "children's vocabulary was richer, their sentences longer and more complex and their use of irregular words more frequent." So that does not prove what you have been saying all along. I don't get it why you think you should jump for joy after this is posted. *shrug*

UNLESS you are really referring to this paragraph
"Ninety percent of children born deaf are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness," said Nicholas. "They don't know how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children. Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language."
Click to expand...
That's true in many case because they are unprepared before a deaf baby is born.
**shrug**
 
"Ninety percent of children born deaf are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness," said Nicholas. "They don't know how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children. Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language."
Click to expand...


Dont you get it? I guess not. Nothing new!

It s not total communication or two ways street. You are limited to many other d/Deaf children who have failed with their devices if you mind. Thats why they do not have a good literacy from early age because they were forced to use SEE without BI-BI language that includes ASL. Oral method tend to make d/Deaf children s delaying language from early age.

So tell me why some hearing parents are learning ASL for their hearing babies. So there! NO excuses for d/Deaf children s right to be taken away from ASL. Thats our Deaf languages if you mind.

NO more abuses toward d/Deaf children s rights or their befriending with other d/Deaf children with or without devices. NO more isolation or forcible/conformity. Sighs! No more damage on d/Deaf children. PERIOD!

No more craps! I am so sick of audist attitude people who thinks of HEAR AND SPEAK that is not good answer for ONE- SIDED category.

Dont denying about that. It s proven to me that quote I pointed that out right here. Blame Blame Deaf people all the time for no reason. NOW Myths of CI article lies all along. ;)

Thank you! ;)
Sweetmind
 
Last edited:
Sweetmind said:
Thats why they do not have a good literacy from early age because they were forced to use SEE without BI-BI language that includes ASL. Oral method tend to make d/Deaf children s delaying language from early age.
Click to expand...

It does not matter which language, spoken or signed or whatever. Research has proven and found that whichever learned first (as long it is complete) can learn 2nd language later. so it does not matter. So that shows that if one learn SEE, it does not affect the child's literacy. If one learn pse, it does not affect the child's literacy. Have to remember, language(any kind) needs to be taught earlier for best result.

see this thread:
http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=27911


So, whatever the language that is taught first, it should be taught earlier than later. for example, don't wait till 5 yrs old to enter K grade. just start using language with child till infinite as long the child grow.. just don't wait, just start now.

That's why hearing babies learn language right from the birth right away because the cochlea of baby is fully developed and mature before birth. Once out of womb, baby start hearing sounds right away if not deaf. that's why hearing parents start talking to babies. of course in some case, at the same time start using baby signs if mom is familiar with it.

so now bottom line, does not matter which language learned first can learn 2nd language as long first language is learned earlier and complete.

:ugh2:
 
I am sorry, but Sweetmind makes absolutely no sense.

And I'm not trying to be rude, either.
 
Join the club Lucia.......sometimes its hard to undy the way Sweetmind's mind works.
Notice it doesn't go into specifics. Are they still delayed compared to hearing kids? There is no mention of verbal IQ improving. It just says that children's vocab is richer and sentance structure more complex. Notice it really doesn't go into specifics.....just like Heath's post about the sinful homosexual lifestyle.
Oh, and I don't trust anything Geers says. Geers is VERY pro-auditory verbal and pro Hearing Impaired hearing Health 101!
 
The second article is better because it slightly touches on the critical issue of normal spoken language development. The first article doesn't mention anything about it.

I've always wondered if there is any significant difference in language development between the right and left implanted ears. Why do I ask?

The left hemisphere of the human brain is superior for language processing (words, sentences, etc.), whereas the right hemisphere specializes in nonverbal information. The left hemipshere supervises the right side of the body and the right hemisphere supervises the left side of the body, so information processing works in a crisscrossing manner. (Deaf children who learned to sign before the age of 6, especially native signers, tend to have more linguistic processing in the right hemisphere in addition to the left one!)

So, is there any significant difference between implanted left and right ears? I ask this question because there has been dichotic listening experiments done to observe the behavior of individual hemispheres in human brains.

A subject receives two different auditory inputs through earphones at the same time. She hears "cat" in one ear and "dog" in the other, or a sneeze in one ear and a giggle in the other, or perhaps a combination of both sounds.

Guess what happens?

She identifies the verbal inputs delivered directly to her right ear more correctly than her left one. And she identifies the nonverbal inputs delivered directly to her left ear more correctly than her right one. Meaning, if she hears "cat" in her right ear and "dog" in her left ear, she is more likely to identify "cat" correctly, because her left hemisphere is more apt at processing language. Meaning, if she hears a sneeze in her right ear and a giggle in her left ear, she is more likely to identify "giggle" correctly, because her right hemisphere is more apt at processing nonverbal sounds.

Both hemispheres do receive signals from both ears in general, but the information does not have to travel via the corpus callosum, unless the subject hears different signals at the same time.

Would a baby with an implanted left ear be more apt at identifying nonverbal sounds? Would a baby with an implanted right ear be more apt at identifying English as it is spoken?

The questions multiply. The mystery continues.
 
Sweetmind said:
Thank you so much. It s proven. I am happy that I have told the truth as always. It s totally wrong for them to push those d/Deaf children into Hearing world only and refuse to learn ASL. No wonder many deafies have a trouble with their literacy that hasn't stopped yet. Sighs! No true communication for d/Deaf children who cannot hear everything.

NO difference between HA and CI that people are trying to pressure about oral method issue as well as it s a must have the Hearing people s rules over us d/Deaf people.. Jeez!

Thats power and control and attitude as usual.

Also there is no two ways street. Bingo!

Have a good day! ;)
Sweetmind
Click to expand...
I find it amusing how you perceive a story like this.
Like said before in AllDeaf it shows that there is a good reason for implanting at young age. And what do you do...

You copy and paste the same posts as you have been using for years now. ("It s proven", "push those d/Deaf", "NO difference between HA and CI ". It's like an old record with lots of scratches "SCOFF"

I think you never even read the article.

SO, I'm glad you responded so quickly to the article... Gave a good impression on you "world".
Please post some more..
 
Boult said:
.................
UNLESS you are really referring to this paragraph
"Ninety percent of children born deaf are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness," said Nicholas. "They don't know how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children. Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language."
Click to expand...
That's true in many case because they are unprepared before a deaf baby is born.
**shrug**
Click to expand...
Unpreparedness has nothing to do with a decision not to use sign.
It has to do with general unfamiliarity with sign (like someone is unfamiliar with the chinese language) and the fact that when the decision has been taken to have a child grow up with CI & hearing/speaking, sign is not required as much.
Even when sign has been used before the child started to use CI, it will be used les frequenter and in the end only be used in some situations.

Looking again at the quote, it looks as if "Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language." is a conclusion from the previous sentence. "They don't know how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children." The two are just two characterisations of most hearing parents that have a deaf child.
It is wrong to conclude that "because the parents do not know sign - they want to have the child grow up speaking."
 
me_punctured said:
The second article is better because it slightly touches on the critical issue of normal spoken language development. The first article doesn't mention anything about it.

I've always wondered if there is any significant difference in language development between the right and left implanted ears. Why do I ask?

The left hemisphere of the human brain is superior for language processing (words, sentences, etc.), whereas the right hemisphere specializes in nonverbal information. The left hemipshere supervises the right side of the body and the right hemisphere supervises the left side of the body, so information processing works in a crisscrossing manner. (Deaf children who learned to sign before the age of 6, especially native signers, tend to have more linguistic processing in the right hemisphere in addition to the left one!)

So, is there any significant difference between implanted left and right ears? I ask this question because there has been dichotic listening experiments done to observe the behavior of individual hemispheres in human brains.

A subject receives two different auditory inputs through earphones at the same time. She hears "cat" in one ear and "dog" in the other, or a sneeze in one ear and a giggle in the other, or perhaps a combination of both sounds.

Guess what happens?

She identifies the verbal inputs delivered directly to her right ear more correctly than her left one. And she identifies the nonverbal inputs delivered directly to her left ear more correctly than her right one. Meaning, if she hears "cat" in her right ear and "dog" in her left ear, she is more likely to identify "cat" correctly, because her left hemisphere is more apt at processing language. Meaning, if she hears a sneeze in her right ear and a giggle in her left ear, she is more likely to identify "giggle" correctly, because her right hemisphere is more apt at processing nonverbal sounds.

Both hemispheres do receive signals from both ears in general, but the information does not have to travel via the corpus callosum, unless the subject hears different signals at the same time.

Would a baby with an implanted left ear be more apt at identifying nonverbal sounds? Would a baby with an implanted right ear be more apt at identifying English as it is spoken?

The questions multiply. The mystery continues.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Would love to read more about this.

Actually, another goood reason to implant on both sides.
 
deafdyke said:
Join the club Lucia.......sometimes its hard to undy the way Sweetmind's mind works.
Notice it doesn't go into specifics. Are they still delayed compared to hearing kids? There is no mention of verbal IQ improving. It just says that children's vocab is richer and sentance structure more complex. Notice it really doesn't go into specifics.....just like Heath's post about the sinful homosexual lifestyle.
Oh, and I don't trust anything Geers says. Geers is VERY pro-auditory verbal and pro Hearing Impaired hearing Health 101!
Click to expand...
This is what I got via email on one of lists I am on;

Earlier cochlear implant, better language

ST. LOUIS, June 30 (UPI) -- The earlier a deaf infant or toddler receives a
cochlear implant, the better his or her spoken language skills at age 3 and
a half is, find U.S. researchers.

Johanna Grant Nicholas of the Washington University School of Medicine in
St. Louis and Ann E. Geers of the Southwestern Medical School at the
University of Texas at Dallas tested the spoken language skills of 76
children, all 3 and a half years old, who had cochlear implants and compared
those results to the length of time each child had his or her implant.

They found that with increased implant time, children's vocabulary was
richer, their sentences longer and more complex and their use of irregular
words more frequent.

"Ninety percent of children born deaf are born to hearing parents, and these
parents know very little about deafness," said Nicholas. "They don't know
how to have a conversation in sign language or teach it to their children.
Many of these parents would like their children to learn spoken language."

The findings are reported in the June issue of Ear and Hearing.

.........

Summary of the article in Ear and Hearing:

Effects of Early Auditory Experience on the Spoken Language of Deaf Children
at 3 Years of Age.

Johanna Grant Nicholas; Ann E. Geers

By age three, typically developing children have achieved extensive
vocabulary and syntactic skills that facilitate both cognitive and social
development. This study documents the spoken language skills achieved by 76
orally educated three-year-olds who were identified between 1-30 months of
age and who received a cochlear implant (CI) between 12-38 months of age.
The effects of age, duration and type of early auditory experience on spoken
language competence at age 3.5 were examined. Examination of the independent
influence of several predictor variables through multiple regression
analysis revealed that pre-implant aided PTA threshold and duration of CI
use (i.e., age at implant) accounted for 58% of the variance. Age at
identification, amplification, and CI aided threshold were unrelated to
language outcome. A steady increase in language skill (at age 3.5) was
observed for each additional month of use of a cochlear implant after the
first 12 months of implant use. The advantage of longer implant use became
more pronounced over time. The previously identified language-facilitating
factors of early identification of hearing impairment and early educational
intervention may not be sufficient for optimizing spoken language of
profoundly deaf children unless they lead to early cochlear implantation.
 
Yea right, Thats where Deaf image comes from St Louis .. He disagreed with Oral rules. I dont blame him for saying it aloud. So be it!
 
Huh? Really trying to make sense out of your post Sweetmind.
Can you explain what you mean. (Or can anyone else explain it to me?)
 
Cloggy said:
Huh? Really trying to make sense out of your post Sweetmind.
Can you explain what you mean. (Or can anyone else explain it to me?)
Click to expand...

As usual, Sweetmind makes absolutely NO sense. ::shrugs::
 
Back
Top