Early Implantation

[jillio]

Sure, the logical conclusion is not that early implanted infants were developing spoken language at a rate comparable to their hearing peers but that they were developing a manual language at the same rate as their hearing peers. Of course, of course.

And yes, when it comes to anti-ci individuals like yourself, we have won for children in ever increasing numbers are getting implants and there is nothing you can do, say or type that will change that.

Can you read?

 

[jillio]

And if you are so naive to believe that there does not exist a double standard on this forum applied by the moderators as to posts made by Fuzzy, myself and Cloggy, then there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

Could that poosibly be because of your offensive tactics and not because you are hearing?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

As before, when did you become a moderator? And secondly, care to follow your own advise? Thirdly, I did state that the A.G. Bell Association is a biased source.

Just stick to my advice jill and there will be MUCH LESS bickering on the forum.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

Just stick to my advice jill and there will be MUCH LESS bickering on the forum.

Fuzzy

How so? You are the cause of the majority of it. We are all capable of engaging in reasonable, productive discussion until you chime in. What's the common factor here? Audiofuzzy and her cohorts. Now, do you have anything intelligent to add to the topic, or do you just want to argue?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

The most recent research I cited came from the Oxford Journal of Deaf Ed. and was an extensive literature review of several studies done with implanted children.

And, in summary of a study, it is not neccessary to cite. Citation is only required when directly quoting.

Journal od Deaf Ed? Obviously biased. Will try to prove anything that benefits deaf ways.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

Journal od Deaf Ed? Obviously biased. Will try to prove anything that benefits deaf ways.

Fuzzy

That's Journal of fuzzy, and can you support your claims that it is a biased publication and exactly where that bias originates? Or are you speaking off the top of your head again without support for your claims?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

And you don't derail valuable discussions? Just because those threads weren't all POSITIVE about Ci's does not make them any less valuable Fuzzy.


I think one think before they speak. Look how many threads got locked up because YOU purposely made sure the fighting in those threads got it locked up. But I am noticing in YOUR own thread and those POSITIVE CI threads you behave and act oh so respectful!

This is like the pot calling the kettle black IMHO!

Oh please- just look at yourself how are you attacking me, accusing me, pointing fingers at me - and then when I am forced to defend myself, you call me "disrespectful". care to take a good long look at yourself? I never derail until someone attacks me personally, like you now.

And if you have any doubts per someobody retreating to personal attacks - see here:

can we safely assume that you are a member of A.G. Bell, and recieve the publication as a benefit of your membership dues?

this is what started an unneccessary off topic avalanche of speculation about Rick's private matters. How's that relevant to the discussion?

Clean up your own act.

Fuzzy


Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

The only thing that your reference to langauge development, and again, you are actually referring to acquisition, not development, indicates is that a child should be in a language rich environment from birth forward. Language, again, is not simply oral/auditory modes, but manual language as well. Early exposure to sign and speech has a much more profound effect on the language development and the cognitive development of the deaf child than does infant implantation.

we are living in hearing world, not deaf world, so sorry but everyone needs to be able to communicate with hearing pple somehow.
the better you can do it, the better for you. and such is a purpose of having HAs and CI - so you can learn oral ways for your own good, and that does not mean excluding sign language.
have it been the other way - life in predominatly deaf world- then learning sign only, or as priority, would make sense.
so far, sign language is mostly important for the deaf only - hearing pple still communicate via oral ways. and even if the deaf community is per se quite big, is not enough to dictate the rest of us how to communicate.

Visual stimulation is eqaully important after birth for cognitive development. Even hearing infants need visual stimulation following birth for neural pathways to develop appropriately. Why do you think all infant toys are brightly colored and designed to capture an infant's attention visually? Why do you think parent's hang mobiles over an infant's crib? The neural pathways necessary for the processing and comprehension of language are not dependent upon sound, but can readily be developed visually as well. Auditory stimulation is necessary only in developing pathways necessary for spoken langauge. This has been supported for years through the data that deaf children of deaf parents develop language at the same rates as hearing children of hearing parents, and that they later fuinction academically at the same comparable rates.

why are you repeating needlessly what I already stated?




Time is of the essence, and the essence we are discussing is language exposure. If you want to discuss optimal development, you can not reduce it to exposure through only one source. That in no way provides the environment for optimal development.

you are reducing to "one source only" if you promote deaf lifestyle and signing, but whatever.



Exactly. And a six moth old baby that has been exposed to sign from birth can communicate through the use of single approximated signs, whether hearing or deaf. They cannot, however, communicate at that point through the use of oral approximations of spoken langauge. A CI will not change that.

You are mistaken. a baby is still developing at that stage and even if it can not express itself orally yet it begins to understand more an more via hearing, and to maintain this development is why it is so extremely important to expose the baby to as much audio stimulation as possible.
to exactly stimulate those connections happening with CI help. that is precisely what CI is for. and can do what HAs can NOT.



The schedules of development that a child goes through have not changed. The only thing that has changed is technology, and our understanding of the way a child acquires language and adapts to environment and personal circumstance. And that really hasn't changed much in recent times, it has simply been expanded upon.

the CI is a milestone of recent technology and caused significant changes in the way the deafness can be assisted/improved.



A child who has been exposed to sign at the earliest possible point in development will be able to transfer their innate understanding of language and its funtions to the understanding and interpretation of language in an oral/auditory mode. The crucial thing is to provide the atmosphere that permits that early acquisition that allows for the understanding of language and its use, and that is best accomplished through use of the child's stronger sensory perception. In the case of a child that is deaf, it would be their visual sense. Even with implantation, a deaf child's visual perception is stronger than their auditory perception.

let's not forget we are simply discussing the benefits of early implanation not the whole ideologies.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

let's not forget we are simply discussing the benefits of early implanation not the whole ideologies.

Fuzzy

And the largest benefit of early implantation is seen in deaf childrenwho receive both sign and speech in their environments. You cannot discuss one without the other. It is not a matterof simply putting a CI on a kid and achieving optimal benefits. Open your mind, fuzzy.

And since you referenced it, who claims that a sign only environment is preferable?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

And the largest benefit of early implantation is seen in deaf childrenwho receive both sign and speech in their environments. You cannot discuss one without the other. It is not a matterof simply putting a CI on a kid and achieving optimal benefits. Open your mind, fuzzy.

And since you referenced it, who claims that a sign only environment is preferable?

When you are discussing the benefits of early implanation where the point discussed is the time of implanation only, adding to the picture the whole ideology only befuddles the subject. learn to stay on the topic.


and it's children who and matter of

Fuzzy

 

[deafdyke]

Journal od Deaf Ed? Obviously biased. Will try to prove anything that benefits deaf ways.

Ummmm how do you know they aren't NEUTRAL? Deaf ed ALSO includes oral education!

 

[jillio]

When you are discussing the benefits of early implanation where the point discussed is the time of implanation only, adding to the picture the whole ideology only befuddles the subject. learn to stay on the topic.


and it's children who and matter of

Fuzzy

So, you propose to discuss the surgery only without any consideration of how to assist that child is best developing the use of the implant? The surgery is of extremely limited benefit in and of itself. You cannot separate linguistic environment from any discussion of benefits of CI, and particularly so when discussing benefits for children. To remove a discussion of linguistic environment is to create the very situation that is responsible for the language delays seen in these children.

 

[jillio]

Ummmm how do you know they aren't NEUTRAL? Deaf ed ALSO includes oral education!

I requested that fuzzy support her claim that the Journal of Deaf Education is a biased publication. She has been unable to do so at this point in time. I doubt she even knows who publishes this journal.

 

[shel90]

Ummmm how do you know they aren't NEUTRAL? Deaf ed ALSO includes oral education!

Right...it also includes all different kinds of programs and approaches in Deaf Education. Nothing biased about it.

 

[jillio]

Right...it also includes all different kinds of programs and approaches in Deaf Education. Nothing biased about it.

Thanks shel and dd. We already knew that, but I thought maybe fuzzy was priviledged to some information that no one else had.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I requested that fuzzy support her claim that the Journal of Deaf Education is a biased publication. She has been unable to do so at this point in time. I doubt she even knows who publishes this journal.

Of course I don't know and I don't care- I wrote it just to show you how such remarks are irrelevant and unneccessary. Bell's studies are irrelevant because the magazine is "biased"? and The Journal of Deaf Ed is not because you like what it says?

a study is a study, period.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

So, you propose to discuss the surgery only without any consideration of how to assist that child is best developing the use of the implant? The surgery is of extremely limited benefit in and of itself. You cannot separate linguistic environment from any discussion of benefits of CI, and particularly so when discussing benefits for children. To remove a discussion of linguistic environment is to create the very situation that is responsible for the language delays seen in these children.

I do not propose it- this is what this thread is about.

The best use of implant is by USING IT. you certainly are not doing it if you sign instead of listen and talk.
and since the time for "window of opportunity" is narrow and quickly fleeting, an implanted child should be completely focused on learning to hear and speak first. the time for sign will come later.

What we are discussing here is the fact the studies shown children who are implanted early have better speech = oral language.

"Bye-bye, bye-bye," said one 3 and a half-year old child, born deaf but with a cochlear implant that partially restored hearing nine months earlier. That's the most complex speech the child uttered during a testing session that involved play with a toy train set.

In contrast, a child of the same age who had a cochlear implant 31 months earlier made more sophisticated statements: "OK, now the people goes to stand there with that noise and now -- Woo! Woo!" and "OK, the train's coming to get the animals and people."

And a linguistic enviroment, language delays, is different subject.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

Of course I don't know and I don't care- I wrote it just to show you how such remarks are irrelevant and unneccessary. Bell's studies are irrelevant because the magazine is "biased"? and The Journal of Deaf Ed is not because you like what it says?

a study is a study, period.

Fuzzy

No fuzzy, a study is a study, and there are many variables involved that you oviously do not have an understanding of. The fact that you would even make such a statement shows that you are unable to properly intrepret that which you claim to read and theefore, makes your assessment of any kind of research completely worthless. And if you are so intent on making sure than information is accurate, then I suggest you either better inform yourself, or refrain from throwing out ridicuals comments that do no more than show your ignorance.

Bell's journal is biased because of the nature of the organization, and the philospophies that are espoused. And the Oxford Journal of Deaf Ed. is not biased because their research is academically based, subject to internal and external review, IRB standards, and presents research findings from various perspectives.

And you have just supported not just my opinion, but many other's as well, that your only intent in your postings is to start drama. If you cannot support your statements with intelligence, logic, and fact, you would do yourself and everyone else a favor by keeping them to yourself.

 

[jillio]

I do not propose it- this is what this thread is about.

The best use of implant is by USING IT. you certainly are not doing it if you sign instead of listen and talk.
and since the time for "window of opportunity" is narrow and quickly fleeting, an implanted child should be completely focused on learning to hear and speak first. the time for sign will come later.

What we are discussing here is the fact the studies shown children who are implanted early have better speech = oral language.

"Bye-bye, bye-bye," said one 3 and a half-year old child, born deaf but with a cochlear implant that partially restored hearing nine months earlier. That's the most complex speech the child uttered during a testing session that involved play with a toy train set.

In contrast, a child of the same age who had a cochlear implant 31 months earlier made more sophisticated statements: "OK, now the people goes to stand there with that noise and now -- Woo! Woo!" and "OK, the train's coming to get the animals and people."

And a linguistic enviroment, language delays, is different subject.

Fuzzy

Exactly where did you get the bolded statements? Pull those out of your imagination like everything else?

The CI is not resposnible for langauge development in a deaf child by itself. And oral language is not the goal that leads to highest fucntioning on a liguisitc level for any deaf children. How do you address all of the research that supports the fact that when comparing CI implanted chidlren exposed to speech only, CI children exposed to both sign and speech, HA children exposed to speech only, HA chidlren exposed to both sign and speech, andhearing chidlren matched for age and academic level, the groups performed as follows, rated from highest performing to lowest performing, respectively?

1. Hearing chidlren
2. CI children exposed to both sign and speech
3. HA chidlren exposed to both sign and speech
4. CI chidlren exposed to speech only
5. HA chidlren exposed to speech only

Those results have been supported and replicated in numerous studies.

The purpose of implanting children is to increase auditory perception. The implied goal of increased auditory perception is, by most parents opting for implant, to facillitate langauge development. Language development is best facillitated throught he use of speech and sign combined. Therefore, early implantation inand of itself does not accomplish the goal desired without consideration of linguistic environment.

 

[shel90]

I do not propose it- this is what this thread is about.

The best use of implant is by USING IT. you certainly are not doing it if you sign instead of listen and talk.
and since the time for "window of opportunity" is narrow and quickly fleeting, an implanted child should be completely focused on learning to hear and speak first. the time for sign will come later.

What we are discussing here is the fact the studies shown children who are implanted early have better speech = oral language.

"Bye-bye, bye-bye," said one 3 and a half-year old child, born deaf but with a cochlear implant that partially restored hearing nine months earlier. That's the most complex speech the child uttered during a testing session that involved play with a toy train set.

In contrast, a child of the same age who had a cochlear implant 31 months earlier made more sophisticated statements: "OK, now the people goes to stand there with that noise and now -- Woo! Woo!" and "OK, the train's coming to get the animals and people."

And a linguistic enviroment, language delays, is different subject.

Fuzzy

Oh really? Where did u get this info from? What about an 8 year old child who has been implanted since 18 months old who is reading at kindergarden level? Hmmmmmm...