Capmeister

So darn spot-on.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

rick48

Good points.

rick48

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

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

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

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.

jillio

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

jillio

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

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

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

Capmeister

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 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

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

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

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

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.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

shel90

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.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

sr171soars

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...

__________________
But trailing clouds of glory till He comes...

Foolishness is not a virtue

jillio

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.

rockdrummer

Wouldn't these be good reasons to implant a child as early as possible?

jillio