substituting or is this what he hears?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wirelessly posted

his loss is enough for a CI, especially if he is not gaining spoken language at the appropriate rate (which is considered greater than one years progress in one years time). Has he gained more than six months worth of language since getting his aids? He should have concrete goals that can be measured and they should be able to tell you if he is meeting those goals. If he has LVAS, it is very likely he will continue to loss all his hearing. If you do intend to eventually implant him, it is better to do it at the youngest age possible. His brain will be better able to understand the signal and he will have better access to spoken language earlier. Also, only a 6 month trial of aids is required for a CI.

also, keep signing! It is one of the best thing you can do for him.
 
Please ignore FJ about having a CI at a early age, even at 3 years old. It is better to stick with hearing aids. :wave:
 
Seconding FJ's post about both signing early and early consideration of CIs (if spoken language is a goal).

We began signing immediately -- no matter what route you take in terms of not aiding, amplification, or cochlear implants, your child needs language desperately and if your child doesn't have very good access to sound now, ASL can provide that from day one. So, what you are doing is GREAT!

Don't let anyone put a fear of ASL in you -- it WILL NOT take away from any spoken language development now or to come. My child's primary language was ASL and she remains in an ASL-based school, and yet, because she has excellent access to sound via her CIs, at 5YO she has acquired an age-appropriate level of fluent spoken English (both expressive and receptive) without speech therapy, AVT, or anything out of the ordinary exposure to language provided to any hearing child. Additional means would, of course, provide even greater command of the language -- I'm not dismissing them -- it's just not where our focus has been in terms of time allocation. Honestly, it seems she never stops talking :) and now she has two wonderful languages, with her primary command of ASL contributing greatly to the rapid development of spoken English.

And all of the legitimate research on child literacy and educating DHH promotes EARLY access to sound (if possible, and if spoken language is desired). See RIT's excellent resource site. There are several major developmental steps that come at different times, the first is within 1 year (we missed that), another comes between 18 months and 3 years (we just slipped in under the wire), others come later. The early you achieve access to sound, the more of these milestones you hit, the easier your child's access to spoken language (not just articulation and expressive technique, but via a natural development of both expressive and receptive language, full comprehension and fluency rather than trained oral skills and technique ). Months make a great difference, years are enormous. So whether it be via HAs or CIs, if you are pursuing spoken language as a possibility, your child needs to attain access to all of the spoken language sounds quickly and fully and his path will be far easier. I've seen it myself in child after child and I've read countless studies on the matter that support this. It's MUCH harder for a 4YO to develop spoken language without significant work than for a 3YO, my child (who has had it easy), had a tougher time than children implanted at 1YO.
 
GrendelQ, I did not say I am against sign language at a early age. Sign language like ASL is really good for the babies and toddlers. Good Grief. You jumped to conclusion on this but I did said that it is not a good idea to have a young baby or toddler early age to have CI. It is better to have a child at a very young age to have hearing aids. Beside why the surgery of all people? I just don't like the idea of using it on younger children. It is just surgery, surgery and surgery. Big deal. :roll:
 
Wirelessly posted

Bebonang said:
Please ignore FJ about having a CI at a early age, even at 3 years old. It is better to stick with hearing aids. :wave:
Click to expand...

actually, all the research shows the earlier the better. The work that it takes for a child implanted at 3 to learn spoken language is exponentially more than a child implanted at 1 or younger. 3 is actually considered pretty late, though with the right therapy and educational support, it is very likely tht a child could acheive fluent spoken language...but by age 5 that changes and only a small percentage of kids do.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



actually, all the research shows the earlier the better. The work that it takes for a child implanted at 3 to learn spoken language is exponentially more than a child implanted at 1 or younger. 3 is actually considered pretty late, though with the right therapy and educational support, it is very likely tht a child could acheive fluent spoken language...but by age 5 that changes and only a small percentage of kids do.
Click to expand...

fear mongering by the docs...
 
Wirelessly posted

posts from hell said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



actually, all the research shows the earlier the better. The work that it takes for a child implanted at 3 to learn spoken language is exponentially more than a child implanted at 1 or younger. 3 is actually considered pretty late, though with the right therapy and educational support, it is very likely tht a child could acheive fluent spoken language...but by age 5 that changes and only a small percentage of kids do.
Click to expand...

fear mongering by the docs...
Click to expand...

sure, every single piece of research is biased. Even the holy marschark says that early implantation is crucial.

the truth is simple. A baby's brain is discovering the world. A baby without access to sound will be making only visual pathways in the brain and will begin to change the pathways that are typically used for audition to visual. That is why a Deaf adult who is implanted can (generally) not understand spoken language through listening alone. Because their brain is now only visual. Early access to sound through implants allows the child to develop language understanding through the auditory pathways (in addition to visual if using ASL).
 
People with LVAS tend to keep quite a bit of hearing over time. Implanting a young child would be premature.

CI has been shown to be beneficial for people with LVAS, but they often hear well into adulthood.

Since blows to the head often bring on loss of hearing, which can then still rebound, better advice , although also silly , would be to put a helmet on the child.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



sure, every single piece of research is biased. Even the holy marschark says that early implantation is crucial.

the truth is simple. A baby's brain is discovering the world. A baby without access to sound will be making only visual pathways in the brain and will begin to change the pathways that are typically used for audition to visual. That is why a Deaf adult who is implanted can (generally) not understand spoken language through listening alone. Because their brain is now only visual. Early access to sound through implants allows the child to develop language understanding through the auditory pathways (in addition to visual if using ASL).
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point..... You're missing the point over and over.

An implant isn't exactly necessary to live a full life, hence the fear mongering. Nothing about spoken language or research. People will be fine without implants.
 
No, pfh, an implant isn't necessary, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable to want one.
 
TheOracle said:
No, pfh, an implant isn't necessary, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable to want one.
Click to expand...

That is because you, GrendelQ and FJ are hearing and don't know what it is like to be deaf at all. You can not experience that. So give us a break. :roll:
 
TheOracle said:
No, pfh, an implant isn't necessary, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable to want one.
Click to expand...

It is understandable but the OP didnt ask about getting one which made FJ's post totally unecessary.
 
Wirelessly posted

shel90 said:
TheOracle said:
No, pfh, an implant isn't necessary, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable to want one.
Click to expand...

It is understandable but the OP didnt ask about getting one which made FJ's post totally unecessary.
Click to expand...

but the op WAS asking about spoken language development in a deaf child. He specifically asked if the issues was due to not being able to process spoken language through listening. The answer is likely yes, so, if the parent wants to develop spoken language through listening, looking into a CI would be an appropriate piece of advice (especially with a progressive loss).
 
Bebonang said:
That is because you, GrendelQ and FJ are hearing and don't know what it is like to be deaf at all. You can not experience that. So give us a break. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, TheOracle is unilaterally deafened.

And, yes, FJ WAS out of line with some of her comments.

CIs are NOT "one size fits all". They should ONLY be considered when the loss indicates it. I don't think that's true in this case, and, it sounds like these parents ARE getting good advise from their professionals.
 
Wirelessly posted

posts from hell said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



sure, every single piece of research is biased. Even the holy marschark says that early implantation is crucial.

the truth is simple. A baby's brain is discovering the world. A baby without access to sound will be making only visual pathways in the brain and will begin to change the pathways that are typically used for audition to visual. That is why a Deaf adult who is implanted can (generally) not understand spoken language through listening alone. Because their brain is now only visual. Early access to sound through implants allows the child to develop language understanding through the auditory pathways (in addition to visual if using ASL).
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point..... You're missing the point over and over.

An implant isn't exactly necessary to live a full life, hence the fear mongering. Nothing about spoken language or research. People will be fine without implants.
Click to expand...

yes, they can and do. But if, as a parent, you value spoken language and access to that as a way to communicate with the majority, than an implant is sometimes the only way to provide that access (and the brain development that goes with it.)
 
Wirelessly posted

Oceanbreeze said:
Bebonang said:
That is because you, GrendelQ and FJ are hearing and don't know what it is like to be deaf at all. You can not experience that. So give us a break. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, TheOracle is unilaterally deafened.

And, yes, FJ WAS out of line with some of her comments.

CIs are NOT "one size fits all". They should ONLY be considered when the loss indicates it. I don't think that's true in this case, and, it sounds like these parents ARE getting good advise from their professionals.
Click to expand...

why on earth was it "out of line"? If the CI comments were out of the the ASL ones were WAAAAYYY off base. He was asking a hearing-speech specific question.

and if someone is told that a 12 month trial of hearing aids is required, and that a 60-90 db loss is not a CI candidate, they are actually being given inaccurate information. Both of those things are factually incorrect.

also, because LVAS is the cause of the hearing loss, the individual would be a CI candidate barring another health issue.

oh, and i certainly never said get one. I said you can look into it.
 
One thing I noticed in the OP's first post was:

"Aided they think he hears either 25db to 30db across all frequencies."

That still puts her son in the speech range right now.
 
AlleyCat said:
One thing I noticed in the OP's first post was:

"Aided they think he hears either 25db to 30db across all frequencies."

That still puts her son in the speech range right now.
Click to expand...

It does, and therefore, NOT a candidate for CI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top