The Cochlear Implant Isn't Always What You Think It Is

I'm going to be critical.

You've pretty much just offered your opinion. You didn't offer much for it to be 'viral'. It sounds like you want parents to have better expectations yet you don't offer any a method to do so. Where you a child implanted and chose to stop using your CI (or just because it got broken)? You tossed out your personal experience with your CI but didn't give much for background on how that has influenced your conclusion. You've said you've see it a number of times how parents expectations of a CI don't match reality, but where is that coming from? Anytime you make an argument for a cause, you have to establish some credibility otherwise it's just opinion.

You should have provided additional data for parents to review. How have you drawn this conclusion? Is it solely from your own experience?

You immediately contradict yourself, or paint a grey picture. You state your CI was a 'hassle', but yet you claim it worked extremely well. I understand you are really trying to get parents to understand that at the core, you want the child to be able to communicate 100% regardless of the form of it. But you don't get to that point until the very end.

ASL is not 100%. If your the only one in the room who knows ASL, its 0%.

All that aside, as an adult who had a CI and still needs to live/work/play in the 'hearing' world I understand your viewpoint. My friends, family, co-workers all think that my CI just means I can hear and understand w/o much effort. I'm sure parents make this same assumption as well, but I have to believe they spend enough time making a critical decision like this and have some realistic understanding, but HOPE will always skew expectations. Careful when stepping around HOPE.

I've done well because I already understood speech. I can't imagine how a child interprets a CI compared to me. I already know what the sounds should sound like, my brain applies that history to the signal from my CI and fools itself into thinking I am hearing my wife's voice the same as before. It's hard to imagine a child only having the CI sounds to go on.
 
It actually was an opinion piece. I thought that much was clear, but perhaps not.

By "slightly viral" I meant it had been shared on Facebook 2,300 times, which was nice, for me anyway. :)

Got the CI when I was 17.

Stopped using it because it broke, then I replaced, and then it broke again. Got fed up with the hassle of replacing, not with the CI itself.

There's plenty I like about it. I just think that people tend to think it's a cure-all for everyone. We've all got different experiences.

I draw on my 15 years of social work experience. I lost count of how many families with implanted kids I've met where the parents believe the kids understand more than they actually do.

I say in the post that this is my experience. I'm not trying to say it's the same for everyone. I want parents to figure it out. I'm not opposed to the CI there are plenty of kids it benefits.
 
I agree with your opinion. Matches my own experience and what I have seen as a DHH teacher and the many parents I have talked with. Shared it on my FB too
 
Yep, it matches my experience as well so far.
 
Paully, the problem is that the "norm" is presented as "almost hearing", when in fact, the benefit from CI varies hugely.....And then we have parents and others acting like it's a personal attack on them, when we bring up the fact that the benefit from CI varies HUGELY.
 
deafdyke said:
Paully, the problem is that the "norm" is presented as "almost hearing", when in fact, the benefit from CI varies hugely.....And then we have parents and others acting like it's a personal attack on them, when we bring up the fact that the benefit from CI varies HUGELY.
Click to expand...

Because when you say that the benefit from the CI varies hugely, you're communicating it to sound like it varies hugely just by chance, as if there aren't variables involved. And that is where your argument becomes flawed.
 
Not being a CI user myself, I can't speak for myself. However, with the many years I've been on this board, I do see there is a big difference in results among CI users. You're totally right, what variables do exist play a big role, and I feel like I can say that because I see the same thing among HA users, of which I am. And, it's been interesting to see that two people who have very similar variables can have such different results. I think much of the argument is directed towards family members, or others who are hearing, that have higher expectations than are actually obtained. I see the point in that they (the family members or other hearies) don't actually experience what it sounds like through a CI, same as I haven't either. I think a good example here would be Angel, she was hearing all her life until the last few years, and she is now bi-laterally CI implanted. She was just commenting the other day that music is not what it used to sound like when she was hearing. And we see all too often on this board and elsewhere where people say "well, if you can hear, then it works perfect!" -- they don't understand that it still doesn't sound the same. What is the "norm" to one is not always the same to another, and some just don't get that.
 
AlleyCat said:
Not being a CI user myself, I can't speak for myself. However, with the many years I've been on this board, I do see there is a big difference in results among CI users. You're totally right, what variables do exist play a big role, and I feel like I can say that because I see the same thing among HA users, of which I am. And, it's been interesting to see that two people who have very similar variables can have such different results. I think much of the argument is directed towards family members, or others who are hearing, that have higher expectations than are actually obtained. I see the point in that they (the family members or other hearies) don't actually experience what it sounds like through a CI, same as I haven't either. I think a good example here would be Angel, she was hearing all her life until the last few years, and she is now bi-laterally CI implanted. She was just commenting the other day that music is not what it used to sound like when she was hearing. And we see all too often on this board and elsewhere where people say "well, if you can hear, then it works perfect!" -- they don't understand that it still doesn't sound the same. What is the "norm" to one is not always the same to another, and some just don't get that.
Click to expand...


I agree. I definitely can hear with my CI but I still cannot function 100% like a hearing person. Big difference.
 
shel90 said:
I agree. I definitely can hear with my CI but I still cannot function 100% like a hearing person. Big difference.
Click to expand...

From what I have read of others experiences you are still very new user and it will keep changing over months and even years.
 
Jane B. said:
From what I have read of others experiences you are still very new user and it will keep changing over months and even years.
Click to expand...
That shouldn't matter either... I have seen experiences right here on this board and elsewhere where CI users are relatively new users and their experiences were VERY different where one may be hearing much better than another. Even years down the line the CI may still not provide everything as in 90% accuracy or whatever- it may for some people but it also may not for others.
 
DeafDucky said:
That shouldn't matter either... I have seen experiences right here on this board and elsewhere where CI users are relatively new users and their experiences were VERY different where one may be hearing much better than another. Even years down the line the CI may still not provide everything as in 90% accuracy or whatever- it may for some people but it also may not for others.
Click to expand...

True.

And I also think we get a number posters that forget how much hearing varies for those that test within the normal range without any devices (those considered to be hearing) .
 
DeafDucky said:
That shouldn't matter either... I have seen experiences right here on this board and elsewhere where CI users are relatively new users and their experiences were VERY different where one may be hearing much better than another. Even years down the line the CI may still not provide everything as in 90% accuracy or whatever- it may for some people but it also may not for others.
Click to expand...

It DOES matter and it's basic common knowledge among CI users. Learning to hear again takes time and rehab. At this point, it is way too soon for Shel to make any declaration. You are still undergoing regular programming during the first six months just to get everything settled in. The first 2 years are about rehabbing and using your "ears" vs your eyes. Plenty of people fail to tend to their responsibilities towards being consist with using the processor all day, attending their appointments, and doing rehab. More often than not; when someone is complaining about their results, when you dig a little you discover they are neglecting to do one or all of these.

Some people are quicker, yes. People who have a good hearing memory of what actual hearing is (not hearing aid-hearing) will often be quicker. The ability to hear all of those sounds again and have your brain construct them into understanding is not an overnight thing, whether the treatment is a CI or natural hearing restoration in the future. The ability to hear is one thing. Having the brain to process it is another story, which is why infants who still have that formative brain do much better than those who were implanted at 4, 8, or 16 years old when they are long past that stage.
 
What I took DeafDucky's post to mean is that it doesn't matter if you are talking about new users or people that have had their CI for years there is going to be a good deal of variance from person to person. Not that an individuals results won't change over the years.
 
Asl is the superior technology..

That stated,
Ci.earns.billions...

Follow the loot, you wil.find.whos interest it serves.as a technology of normalization...

That simple
 
I am not a CI user but I have meet and been friends with a few. I have noticed that people forget CI users are not deaf but not hearing. They are their own class, and should be proud of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using AllDeaf App mobile app
 
BleedingPurist said:
It DOES matter and it's basic common knowledge among CI users. Learning to hear again takes time and rehab. At this point, it is way too soon for Shel to make any declaration. You are still undergoing regular programming during the first six months just to get everything settled in. The first 2 years are about rehabbing and using your "ears" vs your eyes. Plenty of people fail to tend to their responsibilities towards being consist with using the processor all day, attending their appointments, and doing rehab. More often than not; when someone is complaining about their results, when you dig a little you discover they are neglecting to do one or all of these.

Some people are quicker, yes. People who have a good hearing memory of what actual hearing is (not hearing aid-hearing) will often be quicker. The ability to hear all of those sounds again and have your brain construct them into understanding is not an overnight thing, whether the treatment is a CI or natural hearing restoration in the future. The ability to hear is one thing. Having the brain to process it is another story, which is why infants who still have that formative brain do much better than those who were implanted at 4, 8, or 16 years old when they are long past that stage.
Click to expand...

Bleeding Purist, WHY do you blame the user for not trying hard enough? It's a FACT ....and you can ask audis and other experts.... They will all say that results vary. Why is that such a personal insult to you? Sure your CI works very well for you.....but that doesn't mean it's so successful for others.... You almost act like you have stock in a CI company, so any slight suggestion that the end results aren't the best will send stock prices tumbling.
Maybe you're just a really good CI user. You should NOT imply and attack people for not trying hard enough or for being what you see as "lazy".....Seriously, I don't get it. There are some people who do amazingly well with the CI, and then there are people who get very mixed results.
 
DeafNerdMommy said:
I am not a CI user but I have meet and been friends with a few. I have noticed that people forget CI users are not deaf but not hearing. They are their own class, and should be proud of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using AllDeaf App mobile app
Click to expand...

Um actually no. At best they're functionally HOH. That's not really a new or own class.... There have always been deaf people who are functionally HOH.
 
DeafDucky said:
That shouldn't matter either... I have seen experiences right here on this board and elsewhere where CI users are relatively new users and their experiences were VERY different where one may be hearing much better than another. Even years down the line the CI may still not provide everything as in 90% accuracy or whatever- it may for some people but it also may not for others.
Click to expand...

Can I LOVE this post? I remember a poster Bear, who was late deafened. She liked her CI, but said it didn't exactly measure up to the hype.
 
deafdyke said:
Um actually no. At best they're functionally HOH. That's not really a new or own class.... There have always been deaf people who are functionally HOH.
Click to expand...

I can't call myself "functionally HOH" when my non-bionic hearing friends tell me that I hear things that they don't. And when they have to ask for repeats in noise way more than I do.

Again, as it has been reiterated so often on this board, hearing history and amount of time worn & rehab done plays a huge role in how individuals with CI's process and understand sound.
 
Back
Top