Is "Deaf from Birth" a Minority Around Here?

Beowulf said:
Deaf at age two here. I was already talking by then, so I guess that makes me technically post-lingually deaf.
Click to expand...

Not really. Your language acquisition is still in it's very early stages at that point, so you would still be considered prelingual. The general cut off for prelingual is 3-3.5 years.
 
jillio said:
Not really. Your language acquisition is still in it's very early stages at that point, so you would still be considered prelingual. The general cut off for prelingual is 3-3.5 years.
Click to expand...
That what I thought so till he said postlingually then I was at loss. Yeah I am prelingually deaf.
 
jillio said:
Not really. Your language acquisition is still in it's very early stages at that point, so you would still be considered prelingual. The general cut off for prelingual is 3-3.5 years.
Click to expand...

Well, I learned something new. Maybe I became deaf at the perfect time, since a lot of people say I sound like Anthony Hopkins. :giggle:
 
I was always considered HOH at birth, but a recent check of all my medical records now states that I was technically deaf at birth. Turns out what we thought was a mild loss, was actually a moderate loss.
 
KristinaB said:
I was always considered HOH at birth, but a recent check of all my medical records now states that I was technically deaf at birth. Turns out what we thought was a mild loss, was actually a moderate loss.
Click to expand...

I started out severe, and I think it really counts as HOH.
 
Beowulf said:
Hmmm, do you really think your sense of hearing was a huge factor in your speech? I think some people just have a knack. Not sure though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure actually because I never could hear my voice. Only feel it in my throat. Interesting question. Probably have no impact at all. Never even thought about it before.

I only remember teaching myself to speak at five. Don't remember trying before that.
 
jillio said:
Not really. Your language acquisition is still in it's very early stages at that point, so you would still be considered prelingual. The general cut off for prelingual is 3-3.5 years.
Click to expand...

Wow, I did not know that. So I was *also* pre-lingual?
 
I was too pre-lingually deafened, became deaf from medication in hospital, I don't know how long ototoxic meds takes to destroy hearing, my hearing loss was in the severe range at 8 months, had meds from birth till I was healthy enough maybe 1-2 months old
 
jillio said:
Not really. Your language acquisition is still in it's very early stages at that point, so you would still be considered prelingual. The general cut off for prelingual is 3-3.5 years.
Click to expand...

That's true he is not postlingal. However I thought there was a third classification perilingal, which means that you lost your hearing while aquirring spoken language. And kids who lose their hearing as little kids have a headstart and advantage in spoken language aquistation, compared to prelingally dhh kids. I think that a perilingal kid would prolly face the same spoken language issues that a congentially hoh kid would. Meaning they have language, but they're still behind.
 
deafdyke said:
That's true he is not postlingal. However I thought there was a third classification perilingal, which means that you lost your hearing while aquirring spoken language. And kids who lose their hearing as little kids have a headstart and advantage in spoken language aquistation, compared to prelingally dhh kids. I think that a perilingal kid would prolly face the same spoken language issues that a congentially hoh kid would. Meaning they have language, but they're still behind.
Click to expand...

That is something that has only begun to be used by the CI industry. It helps them with their push for childhood implantation. You are correct that they still have the same language issues, but the CI industry misuses the term.
 
jillio said:
That is something that has only begun to be used by the CI industry. It helps them with their push for childhood implantation.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. jillo, do you know if there's any research indicating that kids who lost their hearing, even after only being able to hear for a month or more as an infant, are better CI users then someone who is deep profound from birth? That could very well explain the fact that CI sucess is so varied.....after all, only about 10% of dhh kids are born that way.
 
deafdyke said:
I did not know that. jillo, do you know if there's any research indicating that kids who lost their hearing, even after only being able to hear for a month or more as an infant, are better CI users then someone who is deep profound from birth? That could very well explain the fact that CI sucess is so varied.....after all, only about 10% of dhh kids are born that way.
Click to expand...

There is some research, I believe, that idicates that those who had some hearing for a period of time adjust more quickly to the CI, but the research is to be looked at with a grain of salt, because it is sponsored by CI manufacturers.
 
When I was two years old I got pneumonia, and part of the treatment was being injected with a drug. I forget the name of it but it is a long word, hah. It killed the nerves in my ears. I do not know how long it took for my parents to realize I was deaf. My dad told me that he whistled and shouted at me one day with no response, except when he dropped a heavy toolbox near me.
Poor Mom was so distraught: she took me to several doctors to see if there could be a cure. One day a doctor got very brusque with her, asking if she wanted him to cut me open to find out why I could not hear, to just muck around in my ear? She said if she had a gun on her at that moment, she would have shot him. But you know, I totally respect that doctor: maybe he knew that being deaf wasn't all that bad. :giggle:
 
Back
Top