Why adults choose CI's for their children

Status
Not open for further replies.
The vast majority of CI students in the mainstream require the same support services that are required by students using an HA. If, indeed, they were able to hear and follow conversation the same as a hearing child, theywould not need these support services.

The measurements you are being told about are taken in a controlled environment. They cannot be generalized to an educational environment that does not mimic the conditions of the controlled environment.

I believe that is becoming less and less true. As the age of intervention and implantation becomes younger, the success rates improve. If you are talking about CI user that are now in high school, I agree, but those just entering Kindergarten have better technology and better intervention and therefore better results.
 
Seriously? I don't think it began back in 1980s... if so, it sure surprises me.

1950, Lundberg performed one of the first recorded attempts to stimulate the auditory nerve with a sinusoidal current during a neurosurgical operation. His patient could only hear noise. However, a more detail study followed in 1957 by Djourno and Eyries, provided the first detailed description of the effects of directly stimulating the auditory nerve in deafness. In their study, the stimulus appears to have been well controlled. Djourno and Eyries placed a wire on the auditory nerves that were exposed during an operation for cholesteatoma. When the current was applied to the wire, the patient described generally high-frequency sounds that resembled a “roulette wheel of the casino” and a “cricket”. The signal generator provided up to 1,000-Hz and the patient gradually developed limited recognition of common words and improved speech-reading capabilities. The patient was found able to discern differences in pitch at increments of 100 pulses and was found able to distinguish words such as “pap’, mamn”and “allo”.

In 1964, Doyle et al., reported inserting an array of electrodes into the cochlea of a patient with total perceptive deafness. The electrodes were designed to limit the spread of the electrical field and were stimulated in sequence with threshold square waves that were superimposed with speech signals. The four electrodes were not especially implanted to take advantage of the spatial distribution of the auditory nerve fibers responding to different frequencies, and the result obtained was only satisfactory. However, it was significant that the patient was able to repeat phrases.

Yet another researcher, Simmons (1966) provided a more extensive study in which electrodes were placed through the promontory and vestibule directly into the modiolar segment of the auditory nerves. The nerve fibers representing different frequencies could be stimulated. The patient was tested to assess the effect of alterations in the frequency and intensity of the signal. The subject demonstrated that in addition to being able to discern the length of signal duration, some degree of tonality could be achieved.

The clinical applications of electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve were refined by House (1976) and Michelson (1971) through scala tympani implantation of electrodes driven by implantable receiver-stimulators. Dr. William House observed the percepts of patients when small electric currents were introduced to the promontory during middle ear procedures under local anesthesia. But technical barriers proved frustrating. During the early sixties, House implanted several devices in totally deaf volunteer patients. Although these were rejected due to lack of biocompatibility of the insulating material, that they worked for a short time provided optimism towards a solution for sensorineural deafness. (House testimonial). House teamed up with Jack Urban, a very innovative engineer, to ultimately make cochlear implants a clinical reality. The new devices benefited from the increasing capabilities for microcircuit fabrication derived form space exploration and computer development.



RAPID PROGRESS: The commercial marketing of Cochlear Implants

In 1972, a speech processor was developed to interface with the House 3M single-electrode implant and was the first to be commercially marketed. More than 1,000 of these devices were implanted between 1972 to the mid 1980s. In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device was lowered from 18 to 2 years. ). During the 1980’s, several hundred children had been implanted with the House 3M single channel device. The FDA formally approved the marketing of the 3M/ House cochlear implant in November 1984. By the late eighties, virtually all of the major concerns about the long-term success and safety of cochlear implants were largely resolved.

During this same period, work outside the United States was progressing, most notably in Australia where Clark and colleagues were developing a multi-channel cochlear implant that, in the last half of the eighties, was to become the single-most used implant in the world under the name "Nucleus Multi-channel Cochlear Implant". Multiple channel devices were introduced in 1984, and enhanced the spectral perception and speech recognition capabilities compared to the single-channel device, as reported in large adult clinical trials.
 
I believe that is becoming less and less true. As the age of intervention and implantation becomes younger, the success rates improve. If you are talking about CI user that are now in high school, I agree, but those just entering Kindergarten have better technology and better intervention and therefore better results.

So u are saying the future of Deaf ed wont include ASL and wont need Deaf role models working with these kids? Pls be honest. Tell me what my future as a teacher who is deaf looks like? Do I need to find a different field of work cuz parents wont want me teaching their kids cuz I am deaf and cant hear like their children with CIs do?
 
I disagree. I believe the second statement is because they want to be able to teach and communicate effectivly with their child. They don't want their child to have poor language models, and be behind because of it. (See my last 3 posts)

You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is this was taken from actual research, and are the responses of hearing parents of children with CIs that participated in the research. So, if you disagree, you are disagreeing with those parents, not with me. I just posted the findings.

And since this was valid research, and confounding variables were controlled for, as well as parents being offered the opprtunity to expand, in an open ended manner, to any of the questions posed in the instrument, for you to assume they meant something other than what the findings of the research tells us from their responses is simply to assume that your view is the view of the parents participating in the study. You cannot make that assumption.
 
I just checked - it became approved by FDA and was no longer considered as experimental as of 1984.

Ah, but was not approved for use in children until much later.
 
I believe that is becoming less and less true. As the age of intervention and implantation becomes younger, the success rates improve. If you are talking about CI user that are now in high school, I agree, but those just entering Kindergarten have better technology and better intervention and therefore better results.

That is what we are curious to see how those kindergarten students with CIs to prove us wrong or we were correct by then in time when they reach in the high school level... it would be some ten years later that's when we can effectively dispute.
 
The first wearable single channel implants were implanted by Dr. William House, Dr. Blair Simmons and Dr. Robin Michelson during the 1970's. On August 1, 1978, Professor Graeme Clark and his team from the University Department at the Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital in Australia implanted the very first 10-channel cochlear implant.

And at that time, it was still considered an experimental procedure, not approved for use in the general population.
 
That is what we are curious to see how those kindergarten students with CIs to prove us wrong or we were correct by then in time when they reach in the high school level... it would be some ten years later that's when we can effectively dispute.

then I guess I would be hitting the streets looking for a job but still face discrimination from hearing people. Maybe I should tell future deaf educators hopefuls not to bother studying for Deaf ed cuz they will just end up losing their jobs due to spoken language being demanded in the classroom.
 
then I guess I would be hitting the streets looking for a job but still face discrimination from hearing people. Maybe I should tell future deaf educators hopefuls not to bother studying for Deaf ed cuz they will just end up losing their jobs due to spoken language being demanded in the classroom.

lol but I doubt it will happen, FYI. ;)
 
I believe that is becoming less and less true. As the age of intervention and implantation becomes younger, the success rates improve. If you are talking about CI user that are now in high school, I agree, but those just entering Kindergarten have better technology and better intervention and therefore better results.

No, I am talking about students in all levels of school. And it is not becoming less and less. Early implantation has absolutely nothing to do with the functional limitations of the devise. It simply cannot and does not provide normal hearing. Therefore, the child, particularly in academic situations, will require support services.

Better results does not equate to no need for support services. The devise, even at its best, has functional limitations that must be accommodated for.
 
Question

Are we going to have a repeat of the "Milan Conference"? Pls tell us so deaf people wont waste their time in college studying for a degree that they wont be able to find jobs in. I can save their time and money and not bother become teachers? It sure sounds like in the future, from what RD and fair de jour are saying...parents are gonna want spoken English all day in the classrooms. Pls tell me now so I can spread the word in the Deaf community and tell those do not even bother applying for programs to become teachers. Thanks... it would save so many from being shocked and hurt to find out that they arent qualified to teach deaf kids anymore.
 
So u are saying the future of Deaf ed wont include ASL and wont need Deaf role models working with these kids? Pls be honest. Tell me what my future as a teacher who is deaf looks like? Do I need to find a different field of work cuz parents wont want me teaching their kids cuz I am deaf and cant hear like their children with CIs do?

Absolutly not. First off, there will always be deaf of deaf, for whom spoken language is of little value, and who use ASL as the language of communication. Secondly, there will always be children for who CI's and amplification do not work. There are children born without auditory nerves or a cochlea, they will never benefit from amplification (at least in it's current form). I believe that ASL is the right choice for deaf children, but I can also see why many parents choose to persue spoken language for their child.
 
lol but I doubt it will happen, FYI. ;)

The attitude is definitely out there big time and I am not talking about here in AD..I am talking about IRL.
 
Absolutly not. First off, there will always be deaf of deaf, for whom spoken language is of little value, and who use ASL as the language of communication. Secondly, there will always be children for who CI's and amplification do not work. There are children born without auditory nerves or a cochlea, they will never benefit from amplification (at least in it's current form). I believe that ASL is the right choice for deaf children, but I can also see why many parents choose to persue spoken language for their child.


Well, it is already happening..the parents of CI children are demanding that hearing teachers teach their kids instead of the deaf teachers using both ASL and spoken English. That really hurts many of us cuz all we want to do is teach all deaf children.
 
You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is this was taken from actual research, and are the responses of hearing parents of children with CIs that participated in the research. So, if you disagree, you are disagreeing with those parents, not with me. I just posted the findings.

And since this was valid research, and confounding variables were controlled for, as well as parents being offered the opprtunity to expand, in an open ended manner, to any of the questions posed in the instrument, for you to assume they meant something other than what the findings of the research tells us from their responses is simply to assume that your view is the view of the parents participating in the study. You cannot make that assumption.

I don't disagree with the findings, just with your conclusion as to why the parents made that statement.
 
That is what we are curious to see how those kindergarten students with CIs to prove us wrong or we were correct by then in time when they reach in the high school level... it would be some ten years later that's when we can effectively dispute.

And in the meantime, we are risking their education. That, to me, is just unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top