Trying to be a better personal trainer/teammate

[Onyxmasias]

Hello all,


New ASL educated individual. I come from a society who's not very educated on deaf culture and through a family friend and 110m High hurdle deaf olympic champ joshua hembrough I've been opened up to the world and culture of deaf society. Ive taken classes and will continue as I work toward my degree and also would like to extend an offer to anyone to communicate, practice or just talk. Im a double major in speech pathology and nonverbal communications with aspirations to be a speech therapist and or a body language coach for politicians maybe one day coach track and field for deaf athletes. Hope to hear from someone.




Instagram: onyxmasias

Skype: onyxmasias

Twitter: Onyxtwoxs


somebody let me know

 

[Nothingless]

Those sound like fun, rewarding jobs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using AllDeaf App mobile app

 

[deafdyke]

A speech therapist? *makes sign of the cross*
Are you hoping to revamp the profession? I'd love it if instead of working towards a "pretty/like hearing" voice, or trying to make a dhh kid into a kid indistingousable from hearing kids, speech therapists saw speech training as an ADDITIONAL useful skill......exactly like how it's EXTREMELY useful for say Spanish speakers to have good spoken English abilty........

 

[Bebonang]

When we were young, none of us (maybe more or less) don't like speech therapy trying to speak oral only in the mainstream school, even in Deaf schools. I hate that very much when I was growing up. I would rather use ASL better than speech therapy any day. Why do we have to be put on pressure to do what hearing people want us to be like hearing people? Don't hearing people get it that they have to get use to having us be accepted as d/Deaf and just sign ASL. That is a lot better than speech therapy.

 

[deafdyke]

When we were young, none of us (maybe more or less) don't like speech therapy trying to speak oral only in the mainstream school, even in Deaf schools. I hate that very much when I was growing up. I would rather use ASL better than speech therapy any day. Why do we have to be put on pressure to do what hearing people want us to be like hearing people? Don't hearing people get it that they have to get use to having us be accepted as d/Deaf and just sign ASL. That is a lot better than speech therapy.

As would I........but oral skills are a good tool.....That doesn't mean I'm anti ASL....Simply pro full toolbox. I do agree that speech therapists need to get rid of the fixtation of getting dhh kids to function like hearing kids.....and instead present oral skills as a useful skill for dhh kids. Exactly like how spoken English skills are great for Spanish speaking kids....but ofc Spanish speakers can get along very well without spoken English skills, especially if they can read English

 

[ecp]

As would I........but oral skills are a good tool.....That doesn't mean I'm anti ASL....Simply pro full toolbox. I do agree that speech therapists need to get rid of the fixtation of getting dhh kids to function like hearing kids.....and instead present oral skills as a useful skill for dhh kids. Exactly like how spoken English skills are great for Spanish speaking kids....but ofc Spanish speakers can get along very well without spoken English skills, especially if they can read English

If you are so "pro-full toolbox" why are you so against cochlear implants?

 

[deafdyke]

If you are so "pro-full toolbox" why are you so against cochlear implants?

WTF? Where did I say I was anti CI? I am not Sourmind....I think CIs can be AMAZING for some kids....I simply think that one needs to be super cautious about CIs...I would have the exact same response about a new HA that people were raving about...I don't get it...I HAVE encouraged people to look into CI, especially if they had a progressive loss or clearly have maxed out on traditional aids.........I'm simply saying that technology has limitations....and a study by Johns Hopkins backs me up....at best a CI makes a deaf kid functionally HOH(and while a kid might be able to hear better then 40% with aids, they're still HARD of hearing...they're NOT hearing).......and just as with HAs, response to CIs seems to vary tremendously....That's not being anti CI....It seems like anything that is less then "CI is the BEST thing in the world" is attacked as being anti-CI......Let's just say I think people need to be very skeptical of claims that sound like they orginate as part of a Wall Street pharmatutical pitch platform.

 

[Bebonang]

WTF? Where did I say I was anti CI? I am not Sourmind....I think CIs can be AMAZING for some kids....I simply think that one needs to be super cautious about CIs...I would have the exact same response about a new HA that people were raving about...I don't get it...I HAVE encouraged people to look into CI, especially if they had a progressive loss or clearly have maxed out on traditional aids.........I'm simply saying that technology has limitations....and a study by Johns Hopkins backs me up....at best a CI makes a deaf kid functionally HOH(and while a kid might be able to hear better then 40% with aids, they're still HARD of hearing...they're NOT hearing).......and just as with HAs, response to CIs seems to vary tremendously....That's not being anti CI....It seems like anything that is less then "CI is the BEST thing in the world" is attacked as being anti-CI......Let's just say I think people need to be very skeptical of claims that sound like they orginate as part of a Wall Street pharmatutical pitch platform.

I know that there are some deaf profound who might want to go through surgery to get CI. That is their decision if they are over 12 years old if they can understand the CI surgery. Babies, no.

It is the surgery that is what bothers most of the deaf profound who have to go through with it. It is not a safe surgery. CI is not the best thing in the world. It is just like hearing aids which is tools for them to use to hear environment sounds. It got some problems whether it was successful or not. Most hearing people believe that CI is a miracle which it is not true as the deaf profound could only hear strange sounds like duck quack or robot sounds. Later the sounds might be a little bit better but still not getting to hear like picking up words. Some can manage but still it is a struggle that hearing people don't understand why they could not hear normally like hearing people.

No wonder the CI kids had to go to the Deaf schools to learn to sign ASL and to understand in the Deaf education classes with Deaf teachers who signed to them. Being in the mainstream schools were very difficult to deal with the hearing society where we were forced to speak and lipread without ASL. Most hearing teachers don't get it unless some who understand our frustrations and struggles.

CI is not for everyone, only for some who can manage to understand what they can hear without some struggling, like late deafened.

I am very much against CI on babies, only. Children can decide to CI if they understand the reason why kids have to go through surgery to have devices put in. Some may not like the idea while others don't mind going through this. Every kid are different. No one is ever the same like we are. We may have the same feeling of being deaf and knowing about Deaf Culture which hearing society don't understand.

 

[ecp]

WTF? Where did I say I was anti CI? I am not Sourmind....I think CIs can be AMAZING for some kids....I simply think that one needs to be super cautious about CIs...I would have the exact same response about a new HA that people were raving about...I don't get it...I HAVE encouraged people to look into CI, especially if they had a progressive loss or clearly have maxed out on traditional aids.........I'm simply saying that technology has limitations....and a study by Johns Hopkins backs me up....at best a CI makes a deaf kid functionally HOH(and while a kid might be able to hear better then 40% with aids, they're still HARD of hearing...they're NOT hearing).......and just as with HAs, response to CIs seems to vary tremendously....That's not being anti CI....It seems like anything that is less then "CI is the BEST thing in the world" is attacked as being anti-CI......Let's just say I think people need to be very skeptical of claims that sound like they orginate as part of a Wall Street pharmatutical pitch platform.

I apologize. It just seems like you are against cochlear implants in many posts.
Can you give a link to the Johns Hopkins study? I'm interested in this subject.

The thing about cochlear implants is that it isn't like a hearing aid at all. If you are a candidate for a cochlear implant (whatever your age) you have cochleas with very few functional hair cells. Hearing aids aren't going to help. If hearing aids help, then you aren't a CI candidate.
The few hundred thousand hair cells that usually interpret sound are replaced with between 12 and 22 electrodes.
Anybody who thinks that 22 electrodes can provide perfect "normal" hearing has been deluded.

Anyway, to your point, a kid who hears 40% of speech in quiet with hearing aids is a borderline CI candidate. Better measurements are lack of progression in education and language learning.

People, especially parents of deaf and hard of hearing children, deserve to be fully informed about all options.
Saying that cochlear implants don't provide more benefit than hearing aids is a gross underestimate and blatantly false. Cochlear implants aren't perfect but they do a wonderful job at bypassing a functionally useless (in terms of acoustic amplification) cochlea and actually provide clear and consistent input.

Sometimes people don't do well with cochlear implants. Sometimes people don't do well with hearing aids.
People think that the weird sounds that happen just after a CI is activated will always be there (because they don't listen to their audiologist). They get frustrated, and stop wearing the CI.

At my last MAPping my audiologist had just seen a person with identical hearing loss to me, who was implanted 6 months before me, who never learned ASL, and who still can't distinguish speech from noise with his CI even after 8 months with a cochlear implant.
Why is that? Because he refuses to wear the cochlear implant. He admitted that he only wears it to the mapping sessions and then removes it because it "sounds weird".

 

[ecp]

Hello all,


New ASL educated individual. I come from a society who's not very educated on deaf culture and through a family friend and 110m High hurdle deaf olympic champ joshua hembrough I've been opened up to the world and culture of deaf society. Ive taken classes and will continue as I work toward my degree and also would like to extend an offer to anyone to communicate, practice or just talk. Im a double major in speech pathology and nonverbal communications with aspirations to be a speech therapist and or a body language coach for politicians maybe one day coach track and field for deaf athletes. Hope to hear from someone.





somebody let me know

Dude, I'm sorry you happened to get involved in a cochlear implant vs not debate, it wasn't your intention to get involved in this.


I just have to say, as a former 100m sprinter, 100m hurdler, and 4x100m and 4x200m, running and conversing about running (esp sprints) isn't something to worry about.
Nobody ever taught me how to sprint and after my first 100m hurdle race (during which I "sailed" far too high over the hurdles) I had one brief lesson with the coach who tried to teach me how not to jump too high (I'm female and the women's high hurdles are shorter than my inseam).

Someone with natural talent (like Joshua who has much more than I ever had) probably needs next to nothing during training (except, "yes, you do have to run a mile for warm up" (I still think that is BS for sprinters)).
Ask him where he struggles, don't assume that you know where he has problems. Hearing people think that the start of a race is the hardest part, it isn't. It is easy, everybody else twitches so you twitch your muscles a bit more quickly.

 

[ecp]

I know that there are some deaf profound who might want to go through surgery to get CI. That is their decision if they are over 12 years old if they can understand the CI surgery. Babies, no.

It is the surgery that is what bothers most of the deaf profound who have to go through with it. It is not a safe surgery.

The surgery is absolutely safe. Much more safe than a cholecystectomy (removal of the gall bladder).

The most important time in a child's brain development is between birth and age 3. One reason why cochlear implants don't always work out is because they are performed on adults who have never experienced any sort of hearing. Often this is because their parents want them to "have a choice" and to be exposed to deaf culture and the hearing world.
Is it really a choice when an 18 year old who has never worn a hearing aid or had any sort of auditory therapy rejects their cochlear implant?
No. It isn't.
The kid wasn't provided with an equal footing because his/her parents were convinced that a cochlear implant would rob the child of the culture they were born into (irregardless of whether anyone in the family is also deaf).

So, comparing kids who don't have any auditory input at all (btw, as many people can tell you, hearing doesn't interfere with becoming a part of deaf culture!) and who subsequently have cochlear implants and fail with ANY other subset of cochlear implant recipient is not a true measure of anything.

 

[deafdyke]

The surgery is absolutely safe. Much more safe than a cholecystectomy (removal of the gall bladder).

The most important time in a child's brain development is between birth and age 3. One reason why cochlear implants don't always work out is because they are performed on adults who have never experienced any sort of hearing. Often this is because their parents want them to "have a choice" and to be exposed to deaf culture and the hearing world.
Is it really a choice when an 18 year old who has never worn a hearing aid or had any sort of auditory therapy rejects their cochlear implant?
No. It isn't.
The kid wasn't provided with an equal footing because his/her parents were convinced that a cochlear implant would rob the child of the culture they were born into (irregardless of whether anyone in the family is also deaf).

So, comparing kids who don't have any auditory input at all (btw, as many people can tell you, hearing doesn't interfere with becoming a part of deaf culture!) and who subsequently have cochlear implants and fail with ANY other subset of cochlear implant recipient is not a true measure of anything.

One of the reasons why I'm cautious about CI for deaf babies is simple. It can be very difficult to tell how well a baby hears with HAs....There are right off the bat cases...and there's NOTHING wrong with implanting those kids....but again, whatever happened to all those functionally HOH kids with deaf losses who attended oral schools/programs? See what I mean? Are we assuming that CI is ALWAYS best for severe and profound losses? I do think it needs to be a choice whenever possible......it's very hard to get feedback from a baby regarding how well s/he hears after all......

 

[ecp]

One of the reasons why I'm cautious about CI for deaf babies is simple. It can be very difficult to tell how well a baby hears with HAs....There are right off the bat cases...and there's NOTHING wrong with implanting those kids....but again, whatever happened to all those functionally HOH kids with deaf losses who attended oral schools/programs? See what I mean? Are we assuming that CI is ALWAYS best for severe and profound losses? I do think it needs to be a choice whenever possible......it's very hard to get feedback from a baby regarding how well s/he hears after all......

To address your first point, it is very easy to objectively measure the brain's response to sound using an ABR. If a kid shows no response to 120 dB of sound what makes you think that 130db of sound will be the magical token to understanding spoken language?
Studies have shown that by the time a person has sever to profound hearing loss the outer hair cells are non-existent and the inner hair cells are very damaged. Hearing aids only make sound louder. This works wonders for people with conductive hearing loss since the cochlea is intact. It also works well for people with mild-severe hearing loss because the inner hair cells are present and functional enough to transmit signals.
Once hearing loss gets beyond 85-90db in the low frequencies, it is a good bet that inner hair cells are basically non-functional.
Presenting amplified sound is not only not helpful, it can be detrimental and painful.

I'm not going to say that a cochlear implant is always best for severe to profound hearing loss, and I'm damn sure not going to say it is always best for infants.
I will say that a person with a "full toolbox" approach to education will appreciate that access to good quality sound can do nothing but benefit a child.

Babies who are treated at pediatric audiology centers (especially those associated with teaching hospitals) have basically perfect testing and follow up (so basically kids who live near CHOP and a few other hospitals).

The problem with the "wait and see if they respond" approach is that no consensus exists on how long to wait. Should the infant be fit with super power hearing aids at 3 months, get new earmolds every month for 2 years before somebody finally says that the kid is obviously not hearing anything useful?
By then you have deprived the kid of about half of the critical language learning window. Parents who think their kiddo "might" benefit from hearing aids aren't the type to push a total communication approach and thus the kid loses 2+ years on a technology that isn't meant for profound hearing loss at all.
Is it any wonder that children with profound hearing loss who are not exposed to sign/forced to try hearing aids until they are 2, 3, or 4, struggle to catch up?

I'm not saying sign language shouldn't be involved in children's education. If it is good enough for yuppie babies, it should be good enough for babies who could actually benefit from sign. But sign does not fill the toolbox. Hearing aids don't either. For children with profound hearing loss who show no response to a 3 month hearing aid trial (which is just hilarious for families because the babies have these weird things on and in their ears but nothing changes except mommy and daddy get angry when they try to eat the weird things), a cochlear implant or two is not only indicated by scientific literature, it provides better outcomes when compared to forcing useless hearing aids on a kid for a few years.

 

[deafdyke]

You're assuming that deaf= no response to sound with aids....the side I'm arguing on is that response to aiding for dhh kids is very indivddual, and that virtually ALL babies, whether deaf or HOH or hearing will play the "Now I hear you now I don't" Game.....Also the ABR is a screening tool and can be and is inaccurate...The gold standard is actually the booth test........And what about all the audilogically deaf kids who as recently as the '90's learned to talk with DIGITAL HAs....You do know that they were arguing that digital aids were going to do the same thing that CIs are supposdly doing? Yes, there are good CI users but again the results from implantation have been hugely mixed....Even at the oral Potominkin schools, there are still children who are asked to leave b/c they cannot develop speech...even with prescreening and even with the claims that dhh kids can develop oral speech.........
Just be VERY skeptical.....CIs are a HUGE HUGE business.....and it's good to be very skeptical of the claims, just as you'd be very skeptical of the claims of almost any medical device/medication.