Early implantation

faire_jour

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
3
I spoke with a lovely lady about sharing her VLOG and she gave me permission. I am working on subtitling it so I can share it with hearing people on my blog too. I thought it could educate some people here too.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLiAdXReNVQ[/ame]
 
I cant understand the video as I dont know ASL but i agree a CI at an early age is beneficial and better for the child but in some cases it is not possible e.g their hearing may not detoriate till the child is older. I had a severe loss and it progressed to profound at 8-9 years old so I was then eligible for a CI

they say the earlier the better but some kids can catch up faster than others even though theyv been implanted later.
 
Here ia an English summary (not translation) of what she said:

The earlier, the better saying could not be more true here. Brains are like sponges the first few years of a child’s life. After that, it has been shown that the plasticity/ flexibility of brain starts to decrease. The longer a young child does not have access to quality sound, the more difficult it becomes to make sense of the many sounds provided by a cochlear implant. So telling a parent to wait until the child grows up to make the decision if s/he wants a CI is not a valid recommendation.


Research shows that if the auditory areas of the brain are not stimulated at a young age, then the window of opportunity to develop spoken language will be significantly decreased. Research does not give an exact age, however research and observation are suggesting that children implanted before age 2 are more readily developing spoken language than children implanted after that age.

Going back to the saying of earlier is better. The same holds true for American Sign Language. Research is showing that the brain has the capacity to learn both a visual and an auditory language at the same time. And when children are young they can learn several languages effortlessly. It’s so easy for them!


For us adults, we struggle to pass HS classes in foreign languages and college classes in French, Spanish, and so on. Then at the end of the semester we can only remember a few Spanish words. Why is that?


Two reasons: 1) when we get older, we can only “learn” (not acquire) additional languages – which means we have to be taught, it’s harder to learn languages naturally like children. 2) our brains harden as we get older, so teaching our brains new things are harder than it is for children.

So this principle makes sense, we want to expose our infants/children to as many languages as possible – ASL and spoken/print English for the case of American deaf children. It doesn’t have to be an either/or choice of ASL or a cochlear implant. You can't lose if you're bilingual from birth. You win, and you win the best of both worlds - the Deaf world and the Hearing world.
 
That girl is one of my friends from Deaf softball. Hi Rachel!
 
That makes sense.. Thanks for sharing. ;)
 
Well.....I totally support early implantation......but the thing is....in lots of cases it can be very hard to tell how well a kid can hear with HAs. ABRs are not accurate all the time you know.
 
Well.....I totally support early implantation......but the thing is....in lots of cases it can be very hard to tell how well a kid can hear with HAs. ABRs are not accurate all the time you know.

ABRs are more accurate than standard hearing tests for very young children.
 
My mom said that if I was born today, she would have implanted me, and I agree with her. It was too new/experimental in the time I was actually born.

It is definitely work getting used to it after 26 years of deafness. I just got implanted 4 months ago.
 
Right now Adam doesn't qualify but it is something I have thought about, we have several kiddos at school who are CI and they're 1 or so...
 
I've already said that before her video in other forum about the early HA's or Ci. I was a member of DN that was about ten years ago, my nickname was songbird.
 
Last edited:
Agree, the earlier the better as the results have consistently shown. I marvel at how well the little ones are doing today!
 
ABRs are more accurate than standard hearing tests for very young children.
Really? I have heard of cases where an ABR indicates a profound loss, and later a traditional standard hearing test, indicated they were more hoh.
Besides, it almost seems like the attitude among experts and docs is " Oh if wittle Smashlie" doesn't get implanted within seconds of dx, they will always have speech delays.
Rick, I'm not surprised that the little kids you know are doing well. The question is if it's due to early implanatation or very very intensive therapy.
 
Really? I have heard of cases where an ABR indicates a profound loss, and later a traditional standard hearing test, indicated they were more hoh.
Besides, it almost seems like the attitude among experts and docs is " Oh if wittle Smashlie" doesn't get implanted within seconds of dx, they will always have speech delays.
Rick, I'm not surprised that the little kids you know are doing well. The question is if it's due to early implanatation or very very intensive therapy.

ABRs are more accurate since many young children show inconsistent results when given standard hearing tests. An ABR counteracts that since all a child needs to do is sit quietly.

Research has proven time and time again that early implantation is what allows a child to do well with their CI. Most children who are implanted as an infant or at an early age do not need intensive AVT since they have gone for a very short period of time without hearing. The longer a child or adult goes without hearing, the worse they tend to perform with a CI.
 
Really? I have heard of cases where an ABR indicates a profound loss, and later a traditional standard hearing test, indicated they were more hoh.
Besides, it almost seems like the attitude among experts and docs is " Oh if wittle Smashlie" doesn't get implanted within seconds of dx, they will always have speech delays.
Rick, I'm not surprised that the little kids you know are doing well. The question is if it's due to early implanatation or very very intensive therapy.

Your ridiculous comment about experts and doctors aside, it is quite obvious to anyone who has been around the cochlear implant and its users that it is the implant.

You can have all the so called "very very intensive therapy" in the world but if you cannot hear the sounds, it is not going to be of much help. Surprised that even you could not figure that out. The therapy was there long before the cochlear implant but not the results.

BTW it is not just little kids I "know" but those kids in general who recieve the ci early and get the appropriate S&L therapy, again surprised that even you cannot grasp that fact, but then again maybe I should not be so surprised.
Rick
 
ABRs are more accurate since many young children show inconsistent results when given standard hearing tests. An ABR counteracts that since all a child needs to do is sit quietly.

Research has proven time and time again that early implantation is what allows a child to do well with their CI. Most children who are implanted as an infant or at an early age do not need intensive AVT since they have gone for a very short period of time without hearing. The longer a child or adult goes without hearing, the worse they tend to perform with a CI.

*scratching my head* The children whom I know who have been implanted early are still recieving intensive AVT therapy at the ages of 5 and up and now u are saying that they do not need it. I am totally confused.
 
Why don't we start by asking what is meant by "intensive" AVT therapy?

In my daughter's case, first her therapy was not AVT, but she started out with 3 hours of individual and two hours of group per week and then we added one hour of private S&L a week roughly from the time of her implant at 2 1/2 till she started pre-school around 4 and then it was reduced to 3 hours of individual a week. Over time that amount diminished as well so that by the time she was in high school it average about 2 hours every three weeks and only during the school year and ended completely after her junior year.
 
*scratching my head* The children whom I know who have been implanted early are still recieving intensive AVT therapy at the ages of 5 and up and now u are saying that they do not need it. I am totally confused.

I know kids who never had any speech and were mainstreamed by age 5, VERY unusual! But I would say that an average child implanted before 18 months is done with any sort of therapy by age 5, and they usually have only done one or two hours a week. Older than that is different.
 
I know kids who never had any speech and were mainstreamed by age 5, VERY unusual! But I would say that an average child implanted before 18 months is done with any sort of therapy by age 5, and they usually have only done one or two hours a week. Older than that is different.

Is the goal of CIs is to mainstream and no ASL? That would go against what Rachel is advocating for.
 
Is the goal of CIs is to mainstream and no ASL? That would go against what Rachel is advocating for.

I never said that. We were discussing AVT, so I was explaining what I have experienced. Plus, where did I say no ASL? I said no more speech.
 
Back
Top