Has anyone read this new study?

[DeafDucky]

It just feels like you are discounting ASL as a primary language to me. So those who have succeeded well in life with MA degrees and PhD degrees with ASL as a primary language aren't as good as those who succeed in life with MAs and PhDs with CIs and spoken English as a primary language. At least that's what this study is implying!

I'll make sure to tell several of my friends who grew up with ASL (though to be fair one did become deaf at 11) who have accomplished a LOT, more than I ever could to be honest even though people keep telling me I've accomplished a lot despite/in spite of my deafness and having to struggle SO much through school with hearing aids (nevermind the fact that my audiogram claims my speech recognition is awesome and my speech intelligibility is off the chart :P).

Guess I'm a rare bird (or Rara Avis).... I would rather have grown up with ASL only or ASL in addition. "Only my opinion"

 

[Jane B.]

It just feels like you are discounting ASL as a primary language to me. So those who have succeeded well in life with MA degrees and PhD degrees with ASL as a primary language aren't as good as those who succeed in life with MAs and PhDs with CIs and spoken English as a primary language. At least that's what this study is implying!

I'll make sure to tell several of my friends who grew up with ASL (though to be fair one did become deaf at 11) who have accomplished a LOT, more than I ever could to be honest even though people keep telling me I've accomplished a lot despite/in spite of my deafness and having to struggle SO much through school with hearing aids (nevermind the fact that my audiogram claims my speech recognition is awesome and my speech intelligibility is off the chart :P).

Guess I'm a rare bird (or Rara Avis).... I would rather have grown up with ASL only or ASL in addition. "Only my opinion"

As a side note — thank you for breaking this up into paragraphs as it makes it easy to read.

 

[seb]

It just feels like you are discounting ASL as a primary language to me. So those who have succeeded well in life with MA degrees and PhD degrees with ASL as a primary language aren't as good as those who succeed in life with MAs and PhDs with CIs and spoken English as a primary language. At least that's what this study is implying!

I'll make sure to tell several of my friends who grew up with ASL (though to be fair one did become deaf at 11) who have accomplished a LOT, more than I ever could to be honest even though people keep telling me I've accomplished a lot despite/in spite of my deafness and having to struggle SO much through school with hearing aids (nevermind the fact that my audiogram claims my speech recognition is awesome and my speech intelligibility is off the chart :P).

Guess I'm a rare bird (or Rara Avis).... I would rather have grown up with ASL only or ASL in addition. "Only my opinion"

I'm not discounting ASL at all. The study in question was about CI implants in children under three years old and then followed them through elementary school. The study found that those children who used ASL the least, did the the best on word rec scores and were closer to their peers in language skills than those kids who used ASL the most. If a parent should choose not to get their child implanted I would see ASL as the primary form of communication. However, for those parents who take the CI route, they want the best results for their child and according to this study, you achieve it by holding back on the use of sign language. Unfortunately, this decision is one that can't wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves because the window begins to close after age two for the best results.

 

[AmputeeOT]

Well, look, the Daily Moth is discussing this article

https://www.*********.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Daily-Moth-6-28-17

...And a neuroscientist and other researchers are coming to much the same conclusions I did:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...or-a-flawed-study-is-harmful-to-deaf-children

Quoting from Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D. (bold added by me):

Like White and Cooper, we also agree with parents and pediatricians that ensuring each child’s optimal physical, emotional, and social development is important. However, we strongly disagree with their conclusion that “for hearing parents of deaf infants who have chosen cochlear implants, [Geers et al.] findings suggest that learning a sign language should be an option rather than an imperative.” Within one week of publication, 14 physicians, pediatricians, psychologists, and linguists wrote five separate responses, pointing out that the very study White and Cooper praise is marked with methodological flaws and unjustified claims[1,2,3,4,5]. As deaf scientists, we fear that the results would be accepted as appropriate evidence to support claims that deaf children do not need to learn sign language, further increasing the real risk of impoverished language and cognitive development.

First, Geers et al. failed to distinguish between a natural, human signed language (here, American Sign Language, ASL) and artificial, invented systems to visually convey English. Grouping children together who use any visual form of communication under the umbrella of “sign language” makes it impossible to demonstrate the known benefits of learning ASL[1]. Secondly, additional factors that weaken Geers et al.’s findings include that signing children’s auditory perception abilities were much lower than that of other children[4], and that maternal education and income were not controlled[2, 4].

Consequently, Geers et al. failed to distinguish whether ASL impeded, facilitated, or had no impact on spoken English development. Yet, Geers et al. and White and Cooper clearly favor the hypothesis that ASL impedes English development but it is neither the only nor the best interpretation of the data[3]. Their interpretations are based on correlational analyses, yet they suggest causal relations which their own methodology failed to establish[5]. Their results have no bearing on whether exposure to a natural sign language has deleterious effects on deaf children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional outcomes, but they are dangerously framed and misinterpreted as such[1].

We and others offer a more plausible conclusion: the continued use of some form of visual communication is the consequence of limited spoken language progress, not the cause. Families who chose to continue using visual communication with their deaf child may have done so precisely because cochlear implants did not deliver the expected auditory benefits and/or spoken language communication was difficult[2]. It is likely that these very same children were suffering from long-term effects of early language deprivation, as evidenced by their poorer language and reading scores.

Geers et al.’s conclusions contribute to long-standing biases, resistance, and misperceptions against natural sign languages in clinical recommendations for deaf children[1]. The unsupported claims further complicate what White and Cooper wrongly describe as the acrimonious “debates between advocates of signing and non-signing.” In truth, we and others advocate for deaf children to receive the robust cognitive, language, and reading benefits afforded by more, not less, language--a scientific finding unfortunately obscured by the present study and accompanying commentary[2,5].

Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsychologist, Professor
Director, NTID Center on Cognition and Language
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology

Geo Kartheiser
Doctoral Candidate
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University

Adam Stone, Ph.D.
Educational Neuroscientist
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University

1. Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Lillo-Martin, D. (19 June 2017) Operationalization and measurement of sign language. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

2. Dye, M. W., Kushalnagar, P., & Henner, J. (19 June 2017). Concerns with data analysis and interpretation. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

3. Hall, M. L., Schönström, K., & Spellun, A. (19 June 2017). Failure to distinguish among competing hypotheses. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

4. Martin, A., J., Napoli, D. J., & Smith, S. R. (18 June 2017). Re: Methodological Concerns Suspend Interpretations. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

5. St. John, R., Clark, T. A., & Nutt, R. C. (18 June 2017). To the editor: Concerns with correlative data. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

 

[seb]

Future peer review studies will either confirm or refute the findings of the study. So far all that has come out is basically professional opinions of the results.

 

[Beowulf]

Future peer review studies will either confirm or refute the findings of the study. So far all that has come out is basically professional opinions of the results.

No kidding. That's part of the scientific process.

 

[seb]

No kidding. That's part of the scientific process.

Yep

 

[deafdyke]

How so? You have seen data that shows that auditory brain development is not needed for spoken language acquisition?

You do realize that even in approaches where Sign is used, kids still get a VERY hefty dose of speech, hearing and HOH style interventions right? Heck, they get plenty of auditory stimulation in an auditory oral classroom, otherwise you wouldn't have a job. The fact that hearing babies learn spoken language by speechreading, pretty much throws the AVT theory of auditory brain development out the door. Kids CAN develop those skills with speechreading or in conjunction with signed language.

 

[deafdyke]

Obviously 80% of parents having children who are being born deaf do and are choosing to have their children receive CI in order to give them the best chance in life. As to making you " a person" I would bet that if the people who were born deaf were born with the ability to hear, they would be totally different people and live totally different lives. However, in the past you were dealt a deck of cards and you had to play the cards you got. Today, you get a chance to be re dealt some of your hand.

You do realize that at best kids with CIs are functionally HOH... Not hearing. HOH kids do not have a drasticly different life from oral deaf kids....If that was true then I would not be able to relate on a common ground with people with deafer losses. Our experiences were pretty much the same. HOH does NOT mean hearing.

 

[deafdyke]

Well, look, the Daily Moth is discussing this article

https://www.*********.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Daily-Moth-6-28-17

...And a neuroscientist and other researchers are coming to much the same conclusions I did:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...or-a-flawed-study-is-harmful-to-deaf-children

Quoting from Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D. (bold added by me):

Like White and Cooper, we also agree with parents and pediatricians that ensuring each child’s optimal physical, emotional, and social development is important. However, we strongly disagree with their conclusion that “for hearing parents of deaf infants who have chosen cochlear implants, [Geers et al.] findings suggest that learning a sign language should be an option rather than an imperative.” Within one week of publication, 14 physicians, pediatricians, psychologists, and linguists wrote five separate responses, pointing out that the very study White and Cooper praise is marked with methodological flaws and unjustified claims[1,2,3,4,5]. As deaf scientists, we fear that the results would be accepted as appropriate evidence to support claims that deaf children do not need to learn sign language, further increasing the real risk of impoverished language and cognitive development.

First, Geers et al. failed to distinguish between a natural, human signed language (here, American Sign Language, ASL) and artificial, invented systems to visually convey English. Grouping children together who use any visual form of communication under the umbrella of “sign language” makes it impossible to demonstrate the known benefits of learning ASL[1]. Secondly, additional factors that weaken Geers et al.’s findings include that signing children’s auditory perception abilities were much lower than that of other children[4], and that maternal education and income were not controlled[2, 4].

Consequently, Geers et al. failed to distinguish whether ASL impeded, facilitated, or had no impact on spoken English development. Yet, Geers et al. and White and Cooper clearly favor the hypothesis that ASL impedes English development but it is neither the only nor the best interpretation of the data[3]. Their interpretations are based on correlational analyses, yet they suggest causal relations which their own methodology failed to establish[5]. Their results have no bearing on whether exposure to a natural sign language has deleterious effects on deaf children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional outcomes, but they are dangerously framed and misinterpreted as such[1].

We and others offer a more plausible conclusion: the continued use of some form of visual communication is the consequence of limited spoken language progress, not the cause. Families who chose to continue using visual communication with their deaf child may have done so precisely because cochlear implants did not deliver the expected auditory benefits and/or spoken language communication was difficult[2]. It is likely that these very same children were suffering from long-term effects of early language deprivation, as evidenced by their poorer language and reading scores.

Geers et al.’s conclusions contribute to long-standing biases, resistance, and misperceptions against natural sign languages in clinical recommendations for deaf children[1]. The unsupported claims further complicate what White and Cooper wrongly describe as the acrimonious “debates between advocates of signing and non-signing.” In truth, we and others advocate for deaf children to receive the robust cognitive, language, and reading benefits afforded by more, not less, language--a scientific finding unfortunately obscured by the present study and accompanying commentary[2,5].

Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsychologist, Professor
Director, NTID Center on Cognition and Language
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology

Geo Kartheiser
Doctoral Candidate
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University

Adam Stone, Ph.D.
Educational Neuroscientist
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University

1. Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Lillo-Martin, D. (19 June 2017) Operationalization and measurement of sign language. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

2. Dye, M. W., Kushalnagar, P., & Henner, J. (19 June 2017). Concerns with data analysis and interpretation. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

3. Hall, M. L., Schönström, K., & Spellun, A. (19 June 2017). Failure to distinguish among competing hypotheses. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

4. Martin, A., J., Napoli, D. J., & Smith, S. R. (18 June 2017). Re: Methodological Concerns Suspend Interpretations. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

5. St. John, R., Clark, T. A., & Nutt, R. C. (18 June 2017). To the editor: Concerns with correlative data. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...

In addition I wonder if there was a huge percentage of oral kids from oral schools or programs? That could be a huge part of the reason why the kids appear to do better....b/c there were a significent number of kids from oral schools/programs.

 

[deafdyke]

First of all, I didn't post it. I just responded to it. The study just points out what to me was common sense. The more language you hear the more you will understand through hearing. This wasn't meant to upset anyone, but it clearly did and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The reality is that 80% of todays parents are getting their children who were born deaf implanted and those doing the implanting are having studies conducted or conducting their own to find out what will get these children the most bang for their parents bucks. How do you feel about children who are born with defective hearts receiving heart transplants? My cousins son was born with HLHS and the only thing that saved his life was a heart transplant within a day of his birth.

B/c AT BEST the CI kids are functionally HOH.....The CI does NOT cure the loss. If you go to a CI expo as my friend did, they will tell you that the effectiveness of the CI varies HUGELY all across the board, from functionally HOH to awareness of enviormental sounds. There's no rhyme or reason as to why some kids are excellent CI users and others only get enviormental sound... But you found that with HA too. There were profound and severe kids who responded in HOH levels with HAs....and then another kid might only hear enviormental sounds......There's no real answer how to get the most bang for your buck. Even the private oral schools (the ones that produce excellent results) will counsel out kids who aren't doing that well.....and then the problem is, that while kids might do OK functioning as HOH early on, they start to struggle around fourth grade. Did you know the reason that the oral schools had dorm programs for such a long time wasn't b/c lots of parents were sending their five year olds to the dorms, but b/c kids would struggle in public school and have to transfer? It still happens, but now they transfer to signing programs if they are openminded/lucky.

 

[seb]

B/c AT BEST the CI kids are functionally HOH.....The CI does NOT cure the loss. If you go to a CI expo as my friend did, they will tell you that the effectiveness of the CI varies HUGELY all across the board, from functionally HOH to awareness of enviormental sounds. There's no rhyme or reason as to why some kids are excellent CI users and others only get enviormental sound... But you found that with HA too. There were profound and severe kids who responded in HOH levels with HAs....and then another kid might only hear enviormental sounds......There's no real answer how to get the most bang for your buck. Even the private oral schools (the ones that produce excellent results) will counsel out kids who aren't doing that well.....and then the problem is, that while kids might do OK functioning as HOH early on, they start to struggle around fourth grade. Did you know the reason that the oral schools had dorm programs for such a long time wasn't b/c lots of parents were sending their five year olds to the dorms, but b/c kids would struggle in public school and have to transfer? It still happens, but now they transfer to signing programs if they are openminded/lucky.

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

 

[seb]

You do realize that at best kids with CIs are functionally HOH... Not hearing. HOH kids do not have a drasticly different life from oral deaf kids....If that was true then I would not be able to relate on a common ground with people with deafer losses. Our experiences were pretty much the same. HOH does NOT mean hearing.

I lost my hearing post lingual and I'm HOH and with HA's I would say I can still hear. No my hearing is not like that of a person who has good or excellent hearing, but I get along very well.

 

[Beowulf]

I lost my hearing post lingual and I'm HOH and with HA's I would say I can still hear. No my hearing is not like that of a person who has good or excellent hearing, but I get along very well.

Without your HA's would you say you can hear?
Oh come on, stop being an idjit.

 

[AlleyCat]

I lost my hearing post lingual and I'm HOH and with HA's I would say I can still hear. No my hearing is not like that of a person who has good or excellent hearing, but I get along very well.

So you have no clue what it's like pre-lingual, or to be severe to profound loss. Come on. What are you doing in this thread? Shame.

 

[AlleyCat]

This bugs the shit out of me. Posters like you who have no experience on this, as opposed to those who have a severe deafness and would want a CI (or not), and you spout off stuff you know nothing about. I'm done here. Thank you.

 

[Beowulf]

This bugs the shit out of me. Posters like you who have no experience on this, as opposed to those who have a severe deafness and would want a CI (or not), and you spout off stuff you know nothing about. I'm done here. Thank you.

You are not done. Woo woo.

 

[seb]

So you have no clue what it's like pre-lingual, or to be severe to profound loss. Come on. What are you doing in this thread? Shame.

As I said before, 80% of parents today that have a deaf child are choosing to have them implanted and they want to do what is best to enable their child to get the best outcome from their CI. If that means no ASL, so be it. This is an early study and what follows will determine if the results of the study are accurate or not. The study in question is not talking about people who are deaf and or were born prior to CI surgery becoming more or less common place and have a very little chance of having a good outcome from the surgery. We are talking about pre lingual children who if implanted early enough have the best overall outcomes from the surgery.
http://www.agbell.org/Document.aspx?id=455

 

[seb]

So you have no clue what it's like pre-lingual, or to be severe to profound loss. Come on. What are you doing in this thread? Shame.

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.

 

[Beowulf]

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.

*shuddering*