Ci And Background Noise

[neecy]

I support him because I see you constantly nit-picking and attacking him where its not warranted. I've not used fallacy to support any kind of hypothesis - I just find it remarkable that in the face of all the experience he's had, examples he's shown you about what his daughter is achieving with her CI's, you continue to try to find a way to say he's not acting in the child's best interest.

 

[jillio]

I support him because I see you constantly nit-picking and attacking him where its not warranted. I've not used fallacy to support any kind of hypothesis - I just find it remarkable that in the face of all the experience he's had, examples he's shown you about what his daughter is achieving with her CI's, you continue to try to find a way to say he's not acting in the child's best interest.

Your comparison was a fallacy. Cloggy is perfectly capable of defending himself. And your reason for jumping into that which has not been addressed to you is the same one that makes your arguments ineffective. You are attempting to use emotion to refute logic, and it simply cannot be done.

 

[neecy]

logic: A child communicates better in a noisy environment when she uses 2 CI's as opposed to one - logic states that therefore for that child, the use of 2 CI's is more beneficial for her in a noisy environment.

I don't see the problem with understanding this kind of logic Why do you?

 

[jillio]

logic: A child communicates better in a noisy environment when she uses 2 CI's as opposed to one - logic states that therefore for that child, the use of 2 CI's is more beneficial for her in a noisy environment.

I don't see the problem with understanding this kind of logic Why do you?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that logic, but that is not the logic that I was refuting. And once agian, when you attempt to use emotion to aregue a logical point, the logic becomes distorted and obscured.

Let me ask you this. How is it that you can be certain that the improvement is from the second CI and not from continued adjustment to the first CI or to age related maturational issues? You can't be certain of that from simple observation and therefore, an observation of this nature contains bias. And observation of a response does not tell everything that should be considered when deciding how the stimulus was received.

 

[jag]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that logic, but that is not the logic that I was refuting. And once agian, when you attempt to use emotion to aregue a logical point, the logic becomes distorted and obscured.

Let me ask you this. How is it that you can be certain that the improvement is from the second CI and not from continued adjustment to the first CI or to age related maturational issues? You can't be certain of that from simple observation and therefore, an observation of this nature contains bias. And observation of a response does not tell everything that should be considered when deciding how the stimulus was received.

:roll:

 

[jillio]

:roll:

Have a nice nap?

 

[R2D2]

Let me ask you this. How is it that you can be certain that the improvement is from the second CI and not from continued adjustment to the first CI or to age related maturational issues? You can't be certain of that from simple observation and therefore, an observation of this nature contains bias. And observation of a response does not tell everything that should be considered when deciding how the stimulus was received.

Cloggy's personal observations with his daughter with one CI versus two do seem to be consistent with a growing cohort of studies on bilateral implantation.
The studies seem to point toward improved sound localization and improved sentence recognition in background noise.

 

[jillio]

Cloggy's personal observations with his daughter with one CI versus two do seem to be consistent with a growing cohort of studies on bilateral implantation.
The studies seem to point toward improved sound localization and improved sentence recognition in background noise.

Yes, and these are replications of studies that also found that use of two HAs achieved the same results. But that still is not justification for using a strictly oral approach with a deaf child.

 

[sr171soars]

Yes, and these are replications of studies that also found that use of two HAs achieved the same results. But that still is not justification for using a strictly oral approach with a deaf child.

It depends on the child and especially if the child goes that route.

Personally, I can relate with this even though I wasn't given the option of sign. I simply took to the oral route like a dolphin takes to water. I can only imagine what it would have been like for me if I had a CI (like my current one) to use back then instead of a HA. Having two CIs would have really knocked down the barn doors of life.

 

[jillio]

It depends on the child and especially if the child goes that route.

Personally, I can relate with this even though I wasn't given the option of sign. I simply took to the oral route like a dolphin takes to water. I can only imagine what it would have been like for me if I had a CI (like my current one) to use back then instead of a HA. Having two CIs would have really knocked down the barn doors of life.

It's great that you were able to do that. But, can you also imagine what it perhaps would have been like if you had been given the option of sign? I'm not saying that it definately would have made a difference in your particular situation, I'm only saying that you know that your CI has made a difference in your ability to take in information. Sign could havepossibly expanded on that ability even more when used in conjunction with the CI. And that is what I am advocating for: not to abandon any one approach, but to use them all in conjunction to provide the greatest amount of input and understanding.

 

[sr171soars]

It's great that you were able to do that. But, can you also imagine what it perhaps would have been like if you had been given the option of sign? I'm not saying that it definately would have made a difference in your particular situation, I'm only saying that you know that your CI has made a difference in your ability to take in information. Sign could havepossibly expanded on that ability even more when used in conjunction with the CI. And that is what I am advocating for: not to abandon any one approach, but to use them all in conjunction to provide the greatest amount of input and understanding.

What I accomplished with my HA first and now with my CI probably makes me a legend but I'm not the only one but we are few (severe to profound HOHers who never had full hearing ever). But to achieve what I did required me to totally focus on the oral route period. Sign would simply have detracted from my goals. Why? Too many ways to "cheat" and not fully develop the any one primary focus. You heard of the phrase "jack of all trades but the master of none". I succeeded because I had no other way to do it. I can say probably since I was in my mid to late twenties that I could learn sign without being a detriment to my oral abilities as they were finally and fully established within me.

I will be honest in admitting that probably the way I'm wired to understand my world with amplified hearing is superb and the main reason for my success along with decent brain power to make sense of partial information. I'm sure that goes a long way explaining my accomplishment if nothing else does.

Please don't misunderstand me. I support providing each and every child the full kaboodle of tools. Just realize there are going to some children (like myself) that does better focusing on one path especially if they are motivated and have the ability to do it. It is one thing if they are not but another if they can do it. Don't deny them their glory...their moment in the sun to achieve what few can achieve!!! Few people can understand what it is like for some of us look back and see what where we were and where we are now. We proved the naysayers wrong! We proved those who believe us right! Nobody can take this away from us...nobody!

 

[shel90]

What I accomplished with my HA first and now with my CI probably makes me a legend but I'm not the only one but we are few (severe to profound HOHers who never had full hearing ever). But to achieve what I did required me to totally focus on the oral route period. Sign would simply have detracted from my goals. Why? Too many ways to "cheat" and not fully develop the any one primary focus. You heard of the phrase "jack of all trades but the master of none". I succeeded because I had no other way to do it. I can say probably since I was in my mid to late twenties that I could learn sign without being a detriment to my oral abilities as they were finally and fully established within me.

I will be honest in admitting that probably the way I'm wired to understand my world with amplified hearing is superb and the main reason for my success along with decent brain power to make sense of partial information. I'm sure that goes a long way explaining my accomplishment if nothing else does.

Please don't misunderstand me. I support providing each and every child the full kaboodle of tools. Just realize there are going to some children (like myself) that does better focusing on one path especially if they are motivated and have the ability to do it. It is one thing if they are not but another if they can do it. Don't deny them their glory...their moment in the sun to achieve what few can achieve!!! Few people can understand what it is like for some of us look back and see what where we were and where we are now. We proved the naysayers wrong! We proved those who believe us right! Nobody can take this away from us...nobody!

The problem is when children r in their formative years for language development, we don't know who will be the oral success like u and who won't so by not providing both languages to them, we run the risk of endangering some children's language development if they r the ones who don't have the instrinistic motivation for spoken language. Vice versa if I banned the exposure of spoken language. I just cannot accept the oral-only approach cuz I would hate to be responsible for allowing some deaf/hoh children to be delayed in language resulting in later struggles with academics. I just in my heart would feel too guilty.

I respect your decision but as an educator, it is my job to ensure that all deaf/hoh children have full access to language 100% of the time so they can be able to develop higher level of literacy and critical thinking skills. To be able to do that, I need to provide all of them the full toolbox.

 

[sr171soars]

The problem is when children r in their formative years for language development, we don't know who will be the oral success like u and who won't so by not providing both languages to them, we run the risk of endangering some children's language development if they r the ones who don't have the instrinistic motivation for spoken language...

Come now let us reason together...any good teacher will generally recognize the "gifted" students (you know it when you see it). In this milieu, there aren't many that show this kind of promise. I wasn't talking about those that might have promise but it too early to tell. That would be an unjustifiable risk in my opinion. Give them time and see where it goes.

I was in a "deaf" school for four years and they finally realized that they had to let me go and let me be mainstreamed. This was back in the early 60's (yea I'm from way back) and they knew even then that I was going to make it. So, I started with 3rd grade and went from there. It wasn't just that I spoke well (that is not enough) but the fact that I had that superb reading abilities, pretty much kept up with the teachers, not need any extra services and the list goes on. There is a whole list of things one can observe and see where a student is in the scheme of things. Thus when it come down to it, you will see that I mean those unusual ones and they are not many.

 

[jillio]

What I accomplished with my HA first and now with my CI probably makes me a legend but I'm not the only one but we are few (severe to profound HOHers who never had full hearing ever). But to achieve what I did required me to totally focus on the oral route period. Sign would simply have detracted from my goals. Why? Too many ways to "cheat" and not fully develop the any one primary focus. You heard of the phrase "jack of all trades but the master of none". I succeeded because I had no other way to do it. I can say probably since I was in my mid to late twenties that I could learn sign without being a detriment to my oral abilities as they were finally and fully established within me.

I will be honest in admitting that probably the way I'm wired to understand my world with amplified hearing is superb and the main reason for my success along with decent brain power to make sense of partial information. I'm sure that goes a long way explaining my accomplishment if nothing else does.

Please don't misunderstand me. I support providing each and every child the full kaboodle of tools. Just realize there are going to some children (like myself) that does better focusing on one path especially if they are motivated and have the ability to do it. It is one thing if they are not but another if they can do it. Don't deny them their glory...their moment in the sun to achieve what few can achieve!!! Few people can understand what it is like for some of us look back and see what where we were and where we are now. We proved the naysayers wrong! We proved those who believe us right! Nobody can take this away from us...nobody!

I do understand that there are a few out there that are like you--able to actually achieve oral success despite the odds against them. And I would never deny you the deserved pride you should feel in your accomplishments. My concern remains with the majority that is not able to accomplish what you have. You honestly admit that what worked for you is very unlikely to work for a great number of profoundly deaf children. I admire you for your honesty and your realistic attitude. The ones that invoke my wrath are the ones whose children obviously are not able to achieve that same level of success as is evidenced by the problems they have, and yet they hang onto the oralist attitude. For these people, it is not about success, it is about accepting less than success in order to keep that child functioning at least somewhat on an oral basis. Worse yet, are those that promote the oralist attitude for other's children whose only stake is a professional one.

I think if you will perhaps read my posts as intended, you will find that I have never said that no one is able to achieve oral success. What I have said is that those successes are few and far between. Nor have I ever said that oral skills are not useful and should not be taught. I promote the teaching of oral skills--unfortunately, that in and of itself is not sufficient for most children to receive an adequate education. My problem is not with people such as yourself, who have chosen the oral route and have obviously been successful, as you do not promote it as the first method of choice for all deaf children. You seem to have an understanding of the full toolbox approach and don't appear to take the attitude that a TC or Bi-Bi education is only a second choice should the first oral approach prove to be failing.

 

[jillio]

The problem is when children r in their formative years for language development, we don't know who will be the oral success like u and who won't so by not providing both languages to them, we run the risk of endangering some children's language development if they r the ones who don't have the instrinistic motivation for spoken language. Vice versa if I banned the exposure of spoken language. I just cannot accept the oral-only approach cuz I would hate to be responsible for allowing some deaf/hoh children to be delayed in language resulting in later struggles with academics. I just in my heart would feel too guilty.

I respect your decision but as an educator, it is my job to ensure that all deaf/hoh children have full access to language 100% of the time so they can be able to develop higher level of literacy and critical thinking skills. To be able to do that, I need to provide all of them the full toolbox.

Agreed, which is why I say we ahve it reversed. We should start all deaf children in a bi-bi environment, or at the very least, a TC environment. Those who are wired to become oral successes will make that evident and can be placed in an oral program without loss of opportunity to develop adequate language acquisition. At the same time, those who find it impossible to achieve that level of oral functioning have not lost opportunity, either. The other way around might produce some oral prodigies, but far more suffer from the damage caused by the delays. Is it right to sacrifice many for the few?

 

[jillio]

Come now let us reason together...any good teacher will generally recognize the "gifted" students (you know it when you see it). In this milieu, there aren't many that show this kind of promise. I wasn't talking about those that might have promise but it too early to tell. That would be an unjustifiable risk in my opinion. Give them time and see where it goes.

I was in a "deaf" school for four years and they finally realized that they had to let me go and let me be mainstreamed. This was back in the early 60's (yea I'm from way back) and they knew even then that I was going to make it. So, I started with 3rd grade and went from there. It wasn't just that I spoke well (that is not enough) but the fact that I had that superb reading abilities, pretty much kept up with the teachers, not need any extra services and the list goes on. There is a whole list of things one can observe and see where a student is in the scheme of things. Thus when it come down to it, you will see that I mean those unusual ones and they are not many.

And that is exactly the process I was talking about. You did not suffer impairment to your oral skills as, when you showed promise, you were placed in an oral environment. But neither did your classmates suffer from inadequate language because there was an oral success in their midst.

 

[R2D2]

Agreed, which is why I say we ahve it reversed. We should start all deaf children in a bi-bi environment, or at the very least, a TC environment. Those who are wired to become oral successes will make that evident and can be placed in an oral program without loss of opportunity to develop adequate language acquisition. At the same time, those who find it impossible to achieve that level of oral functioning have not lost opportunity, either. The other way around might produce some oral prodigies, but far more suffer from the damage caused by the delays. Is it right to sacrifice many for the few?

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that kind of approach as long as there was a positive attitude toward CIs and a pragmatic attitude toward the language preference of individual children. Sometimes when I hear you guys saying that sign is THE natural language of deaf children, I wonder if you are really that open minded about this.

I think such an approach could start at the baby/preschool level and then people could take it from there as far as how language preference is developing.

Also, while oral "successes" like S171soars and I may have been uncommon back in the hearing aid days of the 1960s to 1990s particularly in the profoundly deaf range, there are more children who are functionally HOH coming through who have been able to benefit from the increased audition provided by CIs.

 

[R2D2]

Yes, and these are replications of studies that also found that use of two HAs achieved the same results. But that still is not justification for using a strictly oral approach with a deaf child.

Sorry I'm a bit lost. I didn't think we were talking about justifying strictly oral approaches but rather about the validity of parental observations regarding the benefit of their children's CIs bilateral or otherwise.

 

[shel90]

Come now let us reason together...any good teacher will generally recognize the "gifted" students (you know it when you see it). In this milieu, there aren't many that show this kind of promise. I wasn't talking about those that might have promise but it too early to tell. That would be an unjustifiable risk in my opinion. Give them time and see where it goes.

I was in a "deaf" school for four years and they finally realized that they had to let me go and let me be mainstreamed. This was back in the early 60's (yea I'm from way back) and they knew even then that I was going to make it. So, I started with 3rd grade and went from there. It wasn't just that I spoke well (that is not enough) but the fact that I had that superb reading abilities, pretty much kept up with the teachers, not need any extra services and the list goes on. There is a whole list of things one can observe and see where a student is in the scheme of things. Thus when it come down to it, you will see that I mean those unusual ones and they are not many.

Usually that recognization doesnt take place until the child is 3 4 or 5 years old. Of course, I wouldnt deny the child to take the oral path if he/she is showing a gift for it. My point is that when they are babies or the day that their deafness is identified, use both approaches to ensure that no child is deprived of a language. Wouldnt want to use the strictly oral only approach and then at 5 years old the child's language level is at 2 years old. That's not fair to those children, isnt it?

That's why when I look back on how I was able to be successful with the oral only approach and to be able to develop language despite having a severe profound hearing loss without a visual guide ..I wonder if I wasnt as motivated or patient as I was when I was a toddler, I would have been delayed in language development? That scares me..

 

[jillio]

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that kind of approach as long as there was a positive attitude toward CIs and a pragmatic attitude toward the language preference of individual children. Sometimes when I hear you guys saying that sign is THE natural language of deaf children, I wonder if you are really that open minded about this.

I think such an approach could start at the baby/preschool level and then people could take it from there as far as how language preference is developing.

Also, while oral "successes" like S171soars and I may have been uncommon back in the hearing aid days of the 1960s to 1990s particularly in the profoundly deaf range, there are more children who are functionally HOH coming through who have been able to benefit from the increased audition provided by CIs.

We say that sign is the natural language of the deaf because, even if a deaf child is implanted at the age of say, 6 months, they have spent the first 6 monthsof their life interpreting their world from a visual perspective. The cognitive pathways have already begun to develop. And that continues, even in an implanted child as they use visual cues to fill in the auditory gaps. It is a natural strenth, and therefore, should be cpaitalized on. That is the foundation of the advocacy for the use of sign. Use a strength to help compensate for a weakness. Using the weakness to overcome the weakness simply does not make sense. Would you ask a blind child not to use their tactile sense to learn written language in the form of Braille. I doubt seriously whether anyone would find the logic in telling that child they must use their visual sense to read the words, and not thir tactile sense. So why would you do that to a deaf child?