You cannot hear with CI .. ??

[Capmeister]

To be perfectly honest with you, I work at the college level, and of all the prelingually deaf students I work with that have CI, none have walked away from the mainstream without deficits based on educational needs not being met. So it depends on what you categorize as success. If I encounter a student who is functioning at a level consistent with an average IQ, but obviously possesses a superior IQ, and I have done this frequently, then I don't consider that a success. The school system has failed to give that student what he needed to successfully use his innate intellectual skills to his full potential. If you consider 75% communication successful, then great--but unless that student has received 100% communication, or at least the oppportunity for 100% communication, then that is not a success to me.

So darn spot-on.

 

[rick48]

Sorry to say...it is totally unrealistic to ever expect 100% communication even with a CI. I can attest to that since I'm in the 90-95% plus category myself (I never kid myself thinking that I have reached the so called 100% plateau). Am I bothered by that? Heck no, as for all practical purposes I catch everything I need to hear and can communicate in so many ways via many means. So, that miniscule percent I miss is totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.

The trick is knowing when you need to find out if it is important or not. Most of the time, I find that it is not. To make an even more profound point, nobody hearing or not ever gets 100% communication anyway. There is always something everybody misses and that is a natural part of life. It could be due to expectations, misunderstandings, inattentiveness, or any number of other explanations.

Good points.

 

[rick48]

How then do you explain the kids with CI's (that are successful) able to learn and keep pace with the mainstream system? I am also curious about all deaf schools. Are they managed from the hearing perspective or do all deaf schools not suffer the woes you speak of in mainstream schools?

Rockdrummer,

What usually happens is that an IEP is prepared for the child and from my personal experiences the philosophy is not that they are identical to hearing children in the way they perceive and intergrate information because they can now perceive sound, but that they do not process sound and information the same way as a hearing child. Thus, accomodations are made for such things as Teachers of the Deaf, Speech and Language therapy, CART, Notetakers, extended test time, no oral testing, etc.

In short, the individual needs of the deaf child are taken into consideration. I am more familiar with college age oral deaf kids because that is where my daughter is now and some of these kids are truly amazing attending top tier colleges and universities.
Rick

 

[Cloggy]

Originally Posted by jillio View Post
Just because an individual can perceive sound does not mean that they process information congitively in the same way that a person who has always had use of their auditory function does.

Perfectly stated!

Uhhh..... does it matter...

Actually, I would argue that the cognitive process is the same. SOund enters the brain in the same matter... through the "hearing" nerve.....

To the brain.... there's no difference.

 

[Capmeister]

Uhhh..... does it matter...

Actually, I would argue that the cognitive process is the same. SOund enters the brain in the same matter... through the "hearing" nerve.....

To the brain.... there's no difference.

This assumes there's an innate ability to process sound stimuli in the brain. I'm not sure there is.

My brother got a CI and could process sound, but he couldn't really "hear," i.e. process the sound correctly. He didn't like it, couldn't adapt to it well, etc. Yes--that's an INDIVIDUAL story and some people take to it well and some don't.

Perhaps once the brain learns in a certain way at development, later additions to certain functions are quite different than if learned earlier.

For instance, have there not been studies that show that deaf signers, when they sign, are using similar language centers in the brain to hearing people when they talk? My guess is that I--having learned to sign years after learning to talk--perhaps do NOT use as much of my language centers when signing, or rather I use them in a different way. There's something about voicing that slows down my ability to sign, and yet I can MOUTH the words and sign quickly. Something's going on in my brain that allows me to sign better with my voice off. I've talked to other hearing signers who've experienced the same. (I'm far better at it now than when I began--but still there's a slight disconnect if I voice.)

What I'm saying is that for me to take my natural language thought process from what I learned as a baby and convert it into gestural language is taking some extra brain power. I can do it, sure (I have been mistaken for deaf by other deaf people, so I'd say I'm okay at it) but it's taking a little more process in my head than if I were just talking. So some effort is going into communicating in a way which was not my first method of communication.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that someone with a CI, who has learned to take in sound later in life and learned or is learning to talk is expending a bit more effort, mentally, on the task, and therefore the process for learning would perhaps be a different because more is going on "behind the scenes" to get the information clear in the mind?

At parties or dinners or whatever, I'm very used to signing for my brother. He says something, I interpret it. Other say things, I sign what they're saying. When it comes to something I would say, if I'm tired I often say it, then sign it, as it's just easier for my hearing-brain to handle one language and then another language as opposed to two languages simultaneously. I can be exhausted by the time dinner is over. Once I had to sign a one day driving class for my brother because a 'terp couldn't be found. (Darn him and his speeding! ) The only thing tired from that was my arms (it was a long day and I was signing almost constantly for 6 hours or something like that). If I'd had to speak at the same time I was signing for that long... I can't imaging how bad that would have been for me.

 

[rockdrummer]

Uhhh..... does it matter...

Actually, I would argue that the cognitive process is the same. SOund enters the brain in the same matter... through the "hearing" nerve.....

To the brain.... there's no difference.

Here is a study that suggests no cognitive differences between children using CI's or HA's.

Source: NCBI HomePage
Search for We performed this study to determine whether children using a cochlear implant performed differently When the search results finsih at the top left you will see one article from PubMed. That is what's posted below.

Cognitive processing in children using cochlear implants: the relationship between visual memory, attention, and executive functions and developing language skills.

We performed this study to determine whether children using a cochlear implant performed differently from age- and gender-matched hearing aid users on 8 neuropsychological measures of visual memory, attention, and executive functioning. The study also examined whether differences in cognitive skills could account for some of the observed variance in speech perception, vocabulary, and language abilities of hearing-impaired children. In contrast to previous studies, our results revealed no significant cognitive differences between children who use a cochlear implant and children who use hearing aids. Partial correlation analysis indicated that the children's visual memory skills, ie, their recognition memory, delayed recall, and paired associative learning memory skills, correlated significantly with their language skills. When examined at a significance level of .01, attention and executive functioning skills did not relate to the children's developing speech perception, vocabulary, or language skills. The results suggested that differences in visual memory skills may account for some of the variance seen in the language abilities of children using implants and children using hearing aids.

 

[jillio]

Uhhh..... does it matter...

Actually, I would argue that the cognitive process is the same. SOund enters the brain in the same matter... through the "hearing" nerve.....

To the brain.... there's no difference.

You must understand that perceiving and processing to a level of understanding are two different things. They cannot be equated.

 

[jillio]

Sorry to say...it is totally unrealistic to ever expect 100% communication even with a CI. I can attest to that since I'm in the 90-95% plus category myself (I never kid myself thinking that I have reached the so called 100% plateau). Am I bothered by that? Heck no, as for all practical purposes I catch everything I need to hear and can communicate in so many ways via many means. So, that miniscule percent I miss is totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.

The trick is knowing when you need to find out if it is important or not. Most of the time, I find that it is not. To make an even more profound point, nobody hearing or not ever gets 100% communication anyway. There is always something everybody misses and that is a natural part of life. It could be due to expectations, misunderstandings, inattentiveness, or any number of other explanations.

If it is assumed that the hearing student is provided the opportunity for 100% communication in the educational environment based on ability to perceive and process auditory/oral language, then the student who cannot do that must be given additional services (i.e. visual cues) to receive the same opportunity.

 

[jillio]

Here is a study that suggests no cognitive differences between children using CI's or HA's.

Source: NCBI HomePage
Search for We performed this study to determine whether children using a cochlear implant performed differently When the search results finsih at the top left you will see one article from PubMed. That is what's posted below.

I think you interpreted this research differently than the way it is intended. There is no difference in children using HA and CI according to this study, but there is a difference in hearing children and deaf children, and hearing adults and deaf adults. Additionally, this is but one study of many that have been done, and in order to evaluate it, you must compare it to additional studies.

 

[jillio]

This assumes there's an innate ability to process sound stimuli in the brain. I'm not sure there is.

My brother got a CI and could process sound, but he couldn't really "hear," i.e. process the sound correctly. He didn't like it, couldn't adapt to it well, etc. Yes--that's an INDIVIDUAL story and some people take to it well and some don't.

Perhaps once the brain learns in a certain way at development, later additions to certain functions are quite different than if learned earlier.

For instance, have there not been studies that show that deaf signers, when they sign, are using similar language centers in the brain to hearing people when they talk? My guess is that I--having learned to sign years after learning to talk--perhaps do NOT use as much of my language centers when signing, or rather I use them in a different way. There's something about voicing that slows down my ability to sign, and yet I can MOUTH the words and sign quickly. Something's going on in my brain that allows me to sign better with my voice off. I've talked to other hearing signers who've experienced the same. (I'm far better at it now than when I began--but still there's a slight disconnect if I voice.)

What I'm saying is that for me to take my natural language thought process from what I learned as a baby and convert it into gestural language is taking some extra brain power. I can do it, sure (I have been mistaken for deaf by other deaf people, so I'd say I'm okay at it) but it's taking a little more process in my head than if I were just talking. So some effort is going into communicating in a way which was not my first method of communication.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that someone with a CI, who has learned to take in sound later in life and learned or is learning to talk is expending a bit more effort, mentally, on the task, and therefore the process for learning would perhaps be a different because more is going on "behind the scenes" to get the information clear in the mind?

At parties or dinners or whatever, I'm very used to signing for my brother. He says something, I interpret it. Other say things, I sign what they're saying. When it comes to something I would say, if I'm tired I often say it, then sign it, as it's just easier for my hearing-brain to handle one language and then another language as opposed to two languages simultaneously. I can be exhausted by the time dinner is over. Once I had to sign a one day driving class for my brother because a 'terp couldn't be found. (Darn him and his speeding! ) The only thing tired from that was my arms (it was a long day and I was signing almost constantly for 6 hours or something like that). If I'd had to speak at the same time I was signing for that long... I can't imaging how bad that would have been for me.

Its always nice to hear from someone who gets it, even though they happen to be hearing.

 

[Capmeister]

Its always nice to hear from someone who gets it, even though they happen to be hearing.

I can't help being hearing--it wasn't my choice.

This reminds me of a family I met in a store once. My brother and I are talking as we're walking through the store, and a little girl, about 5 or 6 sees this and comes to talk to us. She's deaf and just starting school. And her family comes up--they're learning to sign (which I both appreciate and think "just learning NOW?" but I don't know if it's a blended family or what). So we chat a bit and she asks my brother if he's deaf and he says yes and she asks some other things and she turns to me and asks if I'm deaf. I said, "No, I'm hearing."

With the most cute and quizzical expression she asks "why???"

I smiled and said, "I don't know, honey. It's not my fault. I was just born this way."

Anyway, back on topic: My attitude is such as it is probably because my brother had a CI and didn't care for it (yet his POV is not anti-CI, just that it was not for him), and also because he's finishing up his degree in education and has been focusing on DeafEd (one more week to go). So we talk about this stuff. I know how flippin' brilliant deaf people can be, and it's frustrating to see hearing people make decisions about their education without some real insight into the pitfalls and problems.

We watched the PBS thing "Through Deaf Eyes" over several days (because we'd keep pausing it and talking, I think it took about 7 hours to watch the two hour show) and while I know more about the deaf community than the average hearie, I don't know everything. As we watched the part about the late 80's Gally protests, I was astounded at some of what I saw, pausing it and turning to my brother saying: "Wait--these people are on the board of a DEAF university and they can't sign? She needs an interpreter for this? How can someone think to be an advocate for a group of people with whom she can't even communicate without an intermediary? That's insane." When I saw that the chair of the board also couldn't, we had this exchange basically again. We eventually continued once the smoke shooting from my ears dissipated.

 

[jillio]

I can't help being hearing--it wasn't my choice.

This reminds me of a family I met in a store once. My brother and I are talking as we're walking through the store, and a little girl, about 5 or 6 sees this and comes to talk to us. She's deaf and just starting school. And her family comes up--they're learning to sign (which I both appreciate and think "just learning NOW?" but I don't know if it's a blended family or what). So we chat a bit and she asks my brother if he's deaf and he says yes and she asks some other things and she turns to me and asks if I'm deaf. I said, "No, I'm hearing."

With the most cute and quizzical expression she asks "why???"

I smiled and said, "I don't know, honey. It's not my fault. I was just born this way."

Anyway, back on topic: My attitude is such as it is probably because my brother had a CI and didn't care for it (yet his POV is not anti-CI, just that it was not for him), and also because he's finishing up his degree in education and has been focusing on DeafEd (one more week to go). So we talk about this stuff. I know how flippin' brilliant deaf people can be, and it's frustrating to see hearing people make decisions about their education without some real insight into the pitfalls and problems.

We watched the PBS thing "Through Deaf Eyes" over several days (because we'd keep pausing it and talking, I think it took about 7 hours to watch the two hour show) and while I know more about the deaf community than the average hearie, I don't know everything. As we watched the part about the late 80's Gally protests, I was astounded at some of what I saw, pausing it and turning to my brother saying: "Wait--these people are on the board of a DEAF university and they can't sign? She needs an interpreter for this? How can someone think to be an advocate for a group of people with whom she can't even communicate without an intermediary? That's insane." When I saw that the chair of the board also couldn't, we had this exchange basically again. We eventually continued once the smoke shooting from my ears dissipated.

I will exchange a story for a story. I began exposing my son and myself to the Deaf community from the time he was 9 months old, so for him, he had never known a time when I didn't sign. When he was about 5, I saw him telling a friend from his preschool that "Mommy is deaf." Naturally, I later explained to him that I wasn't deaf, but hearing. He continued to insist that I must be deaf. When I asked him why he believed that, he signed, "Mommy sign, Mommy deaf."

I am in total agreement with your opinions on advocacy. To attempt to advocate for the needs of an entire population without ever having taken the time to actually experience what those needs might be from association is presumptive. What most hearing people think the deaf want is not even close to what the deaf will say they want. We HAVE to stop being so egocentric. It isn't working. Our deaf children contiune to suffer becasue everything is approached from the standpoint of hearing being preferable to deaf. The attempt is to correct the absence of auditory function, and that is not what needs to be focused on. A deaf person can function as well as a hearing person, both educationally and professionally, without auditory function when they are provided the opportunity to do so from their inate position of strength. Sound perception is just that, sound perception. It is not correlated to increased functioning.

 

[Capmeister]

A deaf person can function as well as a hearing person, both educationally and professionally, without auditory function when they are provided the opportunity to do so from their inate position of strength. Sound perception is just that, sound perception. It is not correlated to increased functioning.

Sweet story, and we are in total agreement.

And since I'm pretty new here, I figured you were deaf too.

I asked my brother last night if the CI was perhaps a positive in his life even if he stopped using it at age 12. I suggested that perhaps with society telling him that he needed hearing to be "better," that learning he didn't like the sense and didn't want it made him more independent, more confident in who he was, and more internally happy with his life. He said it's possible--there's an inner calm that maybe comes with knowing "I'm not broken--I don't need to be fixed."

 

[jillio]

Sweet story, and we are in total agreement.

And since I'm pretty new here, I figured you were deaf too.

I asked my brother last night if the CI was perhaps a positive in his life even if he stopped using it at age 12. I suggested that perhaps with society telling him that he needed hearing to be "better," that learning he didn't like the sense and didn't want it made him more independent, more confident in who he was, and more internally happy with his life. He said it's possible--there's an inner calm that maybe comes with knowing "I'm not broken--I don't need to be fixed."

Absolutely. And until we provide our deaf children with the experiences that will allow them to gain that sense of whothey are and become comfortable with it, no amount of technological advancement will correct the situation.

 

[jillio]

Almost forgot--I find the fact that you thought I was also deaf to be very much a compliment.

 

[Capmeister]

Almost forgot--I find the fact that you thought I was also deaf to be very much a compliment.

Heheh. I, too, am occasionally mistaken for deaf, and I always get a kick out of it. When a deaf person is surprised I'm hearing based on how I sign--there's no higher compliment.

 

[shel90]

Thanks Shel. That's what I thought but I wanted to make sure. OK, now that you have said that I am a bit confused..
You said;

Then you said;


So my confusion is that you say you have the skills to communicate with the hearing world but then you say you feel lost because you may only get 80% of what is said.

That is my ballpark figure..it could be 60% and that is for an one on one basis. Like face to face with one person with nobody around. Even with that, i still need to ask the person to repeat themselves at least a few times making communication awkward.

Shel, this is not to slight you in any way but just an observation based on your comments. I would suggest that if you are only able to communicate 80% of the time that perhaps your skills are not what you state them to be. Or maybe a more accurate statement would be I have the skills to communicate with the hearing world about 80% of the time.

To add to my confusion you then said;

One statement is a 80% success rate and the other is a 90% failure rate. Those numbers just don't add up. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
80% is probably more like 60% now that I think about it and that is for only during one on one basis. The 90% failure rate is during large group of people chattering away such as a family gatherings or in the classrooms. I get practically nothing ..I would be lucky to catch a phrase here and there.
I do understand the frustration because I deal with it everyday. It's probably just as tough in terms of communication for a hearing person to assimilate with the deaf world. Many things in life are not easy but we press on for the things that are important to us. I can't tell you the level of frustration for me and my son that is due to our inability to proficiently communicate. It's not for lack of trying and things are getting better but I can tell it's gonna be a long hard road.

It sounds like assimilation for you was also a tough long road and it appears that you still struggle in some areas. I don't believe that your experiences are unique and that many deaf folks probably have similar issues. I also think you would agree that the ability (or inablilty) to communicate is at the root of many of the problems. The feeling of being left out or isolated are a result of the inability to proficiently communicate with others (hearing in this case).

I often wonder exactly how the hearing population would accomidate deafness. I have stated in other threads that expecting the entire hearing world to learn to sign is not a realistic for many reasons as I have stated. So then what is the answer in your opinion? How can we the hearing population accomidate deafness?

When a CI is successful it helps to bridge that communication gap and I have to imagine it would also eliminate many of the issues that you and others speak of regarding education, jobs, safety, social settings and psycological issues.

When its not successful then you obviously have to make other choices and your options may become somewhat limited. If I have misunderstood you in any way please correct me.
Thanks!

I know that the whole hearing population wont accodomate to deaf people's needs. That's why I dont advocate ASL only approach to all deaf children..I advocate for both not one or the other. I am just more concerned with the oral only approach in the schools where deaf children attend. I have nothing against CIs or nothiing against learning speech or lipreading skills...but I am against the oral only approach especially in the educational setting for young children.

 

[shel90]

Uhhh..... does it matter...

Actually, I would argue that the cognitive process is the same. SOund enters the brain in the same matter... through the "hearing" nerve.....

To the brain.... there's no difference.

If there was no difference then all deaf children would be able to develop speech and listening skills with their HAs or CIs. Since that doesnt happen, there has to be a difference in the cognitive process. My brother and I are perfect examples of that...we both were born with the same bilateral hearing loss at 120 dB, both wore the same kinds of HAs, both come from the same family background, and both went to the same oral school but sounds drove him crazy and he would make several attepts to destroy his HAs. He hated sound while for me, I was able to percieve them differently from him.

 

[sr171soars]

If there was no difference then all deaf children would be able to develop speech and listening skills with their HAs or CIs. Since that doesnt happen, there has to be a difference in the cognitive process. My brother and I are perfect examples of that...we both were born with the same bilateral hearing loss at 120 dB, both wore the same kinds of HAs, both come from the same family background, and both went to the same oral school but sounds drove him crazy and he would make several attepts to destroy his HAs. He hated sound while for me, I was able to percieve them differently from him.

After thinking a bit on this, I have to concur with you Shel on this only as far as HAs goes. That goes a long way to explaining the differences in results of different HOHers with oral programs. I have a harder time accepting the argument from a CI viewpoint. The only way I can agree on this for a CI is if the cochlear nerve itself has variances for different people. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Of course, how the CI is implanted can explain some descrepancies and I heard of a couple cases like this. They reinplanted one gentleman and it straighten that problem out. Since he was blind it was his second CI that gave him trouble and he had his first one to compare it to when determining there was a problem.

Getting back to my point...Well, a HA doesn't correct the problems inherited in the cochlea especially with the cochlear hair deficiencies. One can adjust a HA somewhat but there are limitations to that aspect. For a CI, it is a different proposition altogether. Within prescribed limits, a CI is a CI is a CI ad nausem....if you know what I mean (from a standpoint of consistency in stimulating the cochlear nerve). If we assume that a cochlear nerve is healthy in most cases of those being deaf, then there are other variables at work here. Now, we come to the nitty gritty...the variance must be in language development pure and simple. As most know, the earlier the better with spoken language development provided the inputs are consistent from child to child. Having said that, it isn't just with consistent input but also other factors such as parential support, teaching methods, and whatever else that can influence the outcome in a positive manner. I guess that can be so problematical...

 

[jillio]

After thinking a bit on this, I have to concur with you Shel on this only as far as HAs goes. That goes a long way to explaining the differences in results of different HOHers with oral programs. I have a harder time accepting the argument from a CI viewpoint. The only way I can agree on this for a CI is if the cochlear nerve itself has variances for different people. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Of course, how the CI is implanted can explain some descrepancies and I heard of a couple cases like this. They reinplanted one gentleman and it straighten that problem out. Since he was blind it was his second CI that gave him trouble and he had his first one to compare it to when determining there was a problem.

Getting back to my point...Well, a HA doesn't correct the problems inherited in the cochlea especially with the cochlear hair deficiencies. One can adjust a HA somewhat but there are limitations to that aspect. For a CI, it is a different proposition altogether. Within prescribed limits, a CI is a CI is a CI ad nausem....if you know what I mean (from a standpoint of consistency in stimulating the cochlear nerve). If we assume that a cochlear nerve is healthy in most cases of those being deaf, then there are other variables at work here. Now, we come to the nitty gritty...the variance must be in language development pure and simple. As most know, the earlier the better with spoken language development provided the inputs are consistent from child to child. Having said that, it isn't just with consistent input but also other factors such as parential support, teaching methods, and whatever else that can influence the outcome in a positive manner. I guess that can be so problematical...

Stimulating the cochlear nerve only allows for perception to occur. Perception and cognitive processing, while interrelated, function independently of each other. Unless a child has been diagnosed and implanted at the time of birth, that child has laready begun to develop the neural pathways that dictate the manner in which they process, on a cognitive level, information available to allow them to make sense of their environment. It really doesn't matter how one casues the auditory function to be stimulated. While one may be more effective than another, both are artificial form of stimulation and are not innate characteristics.