Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
seb said:
True, but you too have no clue either, you may be pre lingual deaf, but you don't know what a child who has received a CI before the age of two can hear or not hear at the age of nine.
Click to expand...
They are still prelingally dhh, even thou they got implanted early. You do realize not all of us are minimal benefit from HA or CI people who think ASL is "better" b/c we cannot access speech with technology right? Many of us who sign, are good technology users! *GASP* Yes.....even HOH/ good HA?CI users can and do benefit from being bilingal. Why should a dhh kid have to say " What?" all the time!?!??!
 
seb said:
Since everyone hears differently there are many different outcomes. Yes, CI kids are HOH, although some do much better than others. The key to your above post is you seem to be talking about those who are implanted post lingual. However, the children who receive their CI before the age of two do much better than those who receive theirs after the age of two. There is also a huge difference between success rates in those that are post lingually deafened and those who are pre lingually deaf and received a CI later in life. I know a number of people who have CI's and those that were post lingually deafened do much, much better than those who were born deaf. One friend gradually went deaf and had his first implant in his mid thirties. He did so well he decided to go for the second implant and if you couldn't see the processors you probably wouldn't know he is deaf without them on. Another friend received his in his early 60's after a lifetime in the aircraft industry left him profoundly deaf and unable to get any measurable help with HA's. He too went for the second implant after seeing how well he adapted to the first one. He can carry on a normal conversation and talk on the phone without any problems. The only complaint he has is: once he takes the processors off, he is completely deaf. I know others, including some children, but I won't bore you with the details.

Time will tell if this study has merit and we will just have to wait and see what peer review studies reveal as to the validity of this one.
http://www.lsl.usu.edu/files/fryauf-bertschy-cochlearimplant.pdf
Click to expand...
No. I'm talking about prelingal losses......I know that postlingal, late deafened and progressive loss people tend to be excellent users of the CI.... But the effectiveness of CIs for PRELINGAL losses is very hit or miss. It's dependent on the kid
 
deafdyke said:
No. I'm talking about prelingal losses......I know that postlingal, late deafened and progressive loss people tend to be excellent users of the CI.... But the effectiveness of CIs for PRELINGAL losses is very hit or miss. It's dependent on the kid
Click to expand...
Sorry, but most studies on early implanted children who are or where pre lingual tend to have some of the best outcomes.
http://www.agbell.org/Document.aspx?id=455
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-56872010000300020&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
http://www.hoajonline.com/neuroscience/2052-6946/1/9
 
seb said:
True, but you too have no clue either, you may be pre lingual deaf, but you don't know what a child who has received a CI before the age of two can hear or not hear at the age of nine.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely correct. And you don't either. Remember that. Stop writing lectures on something you know nothing about or experienced.
 
Still shuddering. What if there is the god-awful "peer review?"
 
AlleyCat said:
That's absolutely correct. And you don't either. Remember that. Stop writing lectures on something you know nothing about or experienced.
Click to expand...
And you know what a child who was implanted before the age of two hears with a CI at age nine? Really? How is that even possible?
 
seb said:
And you know what a child who was implanted before the age of two hears with a CI at age nine? Really? How is that even possible?
Click to expand...
I don't. That's why I don't quote and lecture on studies. You most definitely shouldn't either. RME. All my posts were ASL-oriented, not CI-oriented. Really, RME. Shame.
 
seb said:
And you know what a child who was implanted before the age of two hears with a CI at age nine? Really? How is that even possible?
Click to expand...

And you do? Each person with a CI hears differently. Even those of us late deafened have different experiences as to how things sound. Some are hearing "normal", some are struggling, and some only hear electrode noises.
 
LoveBlue said:
And you do? Each person with a CI hears differently. Even those of us late deafened have different experiences as to how things sound. Some are hearing "normal", some are struggling, and some only hear electrode noises.
Click to expand...
If you look back just a few posts, I think I said just what you did.
 
AlleyCat said:
I don't. That's why I don't quote and lecture on studies. You most definitely shouldn't either. RME. All my posts were ASL-oriented, not CI-oriented. Really, RME. Shame.
Click to expand...
And you shouldn't lecture on ASL in regards to early implant patients either. If this study should hold up to be true, just think of the damage you could do from your lectures on the every deaf kid should be using ASL even when a study shows that it could do harm in the person getting the most out of their CI. RME and shame on you too!
 
.

Omg. I had to delete this. I can't go any further with this stupid a$$ conversation.
 
Last edited:
If Sweetmind were still here, we'd be reading her endless posts against this kind of study.... she is a big advocate of ASL for children.
 
seb said:
And you shouldn't lecture on ASL in regards to early implant patients either. If this study should hold up to be true, just think of the damage you could do from your lectures on the every deaf kid should be using ASL even when a study shows that it could do harm in the person getting the most out of their CI. RME and shame on you too!
Click to expand...
HARM?!?!?!? Oh lord. Since this is a Geers study, you know how they define good? It's not "quality of language" or having a higher verbal IQ. It's b/c Geers is one of those researchers who considers ASL a "crutch". A kid could have excellent speech, but b/c they also signed, they'd be classified as "lesser then" an oral only kid simply b/c they sign. You do realize that what you're saying is that dhh kids are so low functioning they cannot learn to speak without their life being an eternal speech therapy session right?
 
deafdyke said:
HARM?!?!?!? Oh lord. Since this is a Geers study, you know how they define good? It's not "quality of language" or having a higher verbal IQ. It's b/c Geers is one of those researchers who considers ASL a "crutch". A kid could have excellent speech, but b/c they also signed, they'd be classified as "lesser then" an oral only kid simply b/c they sign. You do realize that what you're saying is that dhh kids are so low functioning they cannot learn to speak without their life being an eternal speech therapy session right?
Click to expand...
Is this a known published fact or is it your opinion? There are other studies that have shown similar results. I believe I attached links to them on previous replies.
 
Last edited:
Calvin said:
If Sweetmind were still here, we'd be reading her endless posts against this kind of study.... she is a big advocate of ASL for children.
Click to expand...
More like extremely anti CI. Really still feel bad for her. It's so obvious she has PSTD. Did you know she grew up oral with HAs?
 
seb said:
Is this a known published fact or is it your opinion? There are other studies that have shown similar results. I believe I attached links to them on previous replies.
Click to expand...
It's a FACT. Ann Geers is a VERY well known oral deaf researcher, and the way they classify "good" is that they view ASL as a crutch. It's not about bigger vocab, or normal verbal IQ...it's the fact that Ann Geers is extremely audist and only looks at ONE part of a child....and of course there are other studies. Oralism is BIG BUSINESS!
 
deafdyke said:
More like extremely anti CI. Really still feel bad for her. It's so obvious she has PSTD. Did you know she grew up oral with HAs?
Click to expand...

I was in a different Deaf forum long before I joined AD, I knew about her beliefs and the stuffs she mentioned about her past. She was around here for a brief period of time many years ago.
 
deafdyke said:
HARM?!?!?!? Oh lord. Since this is a Geers study, you know how they define good? It's not "quality of language" or having a higher verbal IQ. It's b/c Geers is one of those researchers who considers ASL a "crutch". A kid could have excellent speech, but b/c they also signed, they'd be classified as "lesser then" an oral only kid simply b/c they sign. You do realize that what you're saying is that dhh kids are so low functioning they cannot learn to speak without their life being an eternal speech therapy session right?
Click to expand...
You are absolutely wrong. They defined exactly what they were looking at. They looked at speech understanding, speech production, spoken English skills (including form and vocabulary) and reading skills in early and late elementary school. They controlled for IQ and family SES. The kids who signed were almost 4 times more likely to be delayed in reading.

The kids all came from the same CI centers, so they had access to the same audiologists and surgeons. They had the same access to therapy. The difference was signing and not signing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top