Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users

Cloggy · 11-18-2007, 03:39 PM

Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users: A Comparison with Normal-Hearing Age-Mates.

Article
Ear & Hearing. 24(1) Supplement:90S-105S, February 2003.
Uchanski, Rosalie M.; Geers, Ann E.

Abstract:
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare select acoustic characteristics of the speech of deaf children who use cochlear implants (young cochlear implant users) with those of children with normal hearing. A secondary objective of this study was to examine the effect, if any, of the deaf child's education (oral versus total communication) on the similarity of these acoustic characteristics to those of normal-hearing age-mates.

Design: Speech was recorded from 181 young cochlear implant users and from 24 children with normal hearing. All speech was produced by imitation, and consisted of complete sentences. Acoustic measures included voice onset time (/t/, /d/), second formant frequency (/i/, /[Latin small letter open o]/), spectral moments (mean, skew and kurtosis of /s/ and /[Latin small letter esh]/), a nasal manner metric, and durations (of vowels, words, and sentences).

Results and Discussion: A large percentage (46 to 97%) of the young cochlear implant users produced acoustic characteristics with values within the range found for children with normal hearing. Exceptions were sentence duration and vowel duration in sentence-initial words, for which only 23 and 25%, respectively, of the COCHLEAR IMPLANT users had values within the normal range. Additionally, for most of the acoustic measures, significantly more COCHLEAR IMPLANT users from oral than from total communication settings had values within the normal range.

Conclusions: Compared with deaf children with hearing aids (from previous studies by others), deaf children who use cochlear implants have improved speech production skills, as reflected in the acoustic measures of this study. Placement in an oral communication educational setting is also associated with more speech production improvement than placement in a total communication setting.

jillio · 11-18-2007, 04:22 PM

I guess that's great if all you are concerned about is how a deaf child produces speech through imitation.

Kaitin · 11-18-2007, 04:23 PM

To me this seems like a complicated issue with many possible answers and articles with different conclusions.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.43 1185-1204 October 2000: Speech, Vocabulary, and the Education of Children Using Cochlear Implants - Oral or Total Communication?

This study examines the relationship between the teaching method, oral or total communication, used at children's schools and children's consonant-production accuracy and vocabulary development over time. Children who participated in the study (N=147) demonstrated profound sensorineural hearing loss and had used cochlear implants for between 6 months and 10 years. Educational programs that used an oral communication (OC) approach focused on the development of spoken language, whereas educational programs that used a total communication (TC) approach focused on the development of language using both signed and spoken language. Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) we compared the consonant-production accuracy, receptive spoken vocabulary, and expressive spoken and/or signed vocabulary skills, over time, of children who were enrolled in schools that used either OC or TC approaches, while controlling for a number of variables. These variables included age at implantation, preoperative aided speech detection thresholds, type of cochlear implant device used, and whether a complete or incomplete active electrode array was implanted. The results of this study indicated that as they used their implants the children demonstrated improved consonant-production accuracy and expressive and receptive vocabulary over time, regardless of whether their school employed a TC or OC teaching method. Furthermore, there appeared to be a complex relationship among children's performance with the cochlear implant, age at implantation, and communication/teaching strategy employed by the school. Controlling for all variables, children in OC programs demonstrated, on average, superior consonant-production accuracy, with significantly greater rates of improvement in consonant-production accuracy scores over time compared to children in TC programs. However, there was no significant difference between OC and TC groups in performance or rate of growth in consonant-production accuracy when children received their implants before the age of 5 years. There was no significant difference between the OC and TC groups in receptive spoken vocabulary scores or in rate of improvement over time. However, children in the TC group achieved significantly higher receptive spoken vocabulary scores than children in the OC group if they received their implant before the age of 5 years. The TC group demonstrated superior scores and rates of growth on the expressive vocabulary measure (spoken and/or signed) when compared to the OC group if they received their implants during their preschool or early elementary school years. There was no significant difference if the children received their implants during middle elementary school. Regardless of whether children were in the OC or TC group, children who received their implants during preschool demonstrated stronger performance, on average, on all measures over time than children who received their implants during their elementary school years. The results of this study suggest that children may benefit from using cochlear implants regardless of the communication strategy/teaching approach employed by their school program and that other considerations, such as the age at which children receive implants, are more important. Implications and future research needs are discussed.

---

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1982 Sep-Oct;97:62-72: Speech and language development in a parent-infant total communication program.

In the program described, the use of total communication (TC) did not impede speech development in preschool deaf children. Evidence indicates that sign language facilitated the young hearing-impaired child's acquisition of communicative oral speech. Exposure to sign language combined with speech enhanced the meaningfulness of residual hearing and lipreading. Milestones in sign language acquisition paralleled the milestones of spoken language. Young hearing-impaired TC children appeared to learn and express more language at an earlier age than is typical of orally trained hearing-impaired children. This implies that their cognition may not be as severely inhibited because their language acquisition is less severely delayed. This should have favorable consequences for later educational and social development. The families In the TC program were able to normalize their child-rearing activities and relationships.

deafdyke · 11-18-2007, 06:00 PM

Cloggy, the study is highlighting that oral kids can go "boo be bah" better then TC kids. Just b/c someone can say something well, it doesn't mean that they have a handle on the meat and potatos of that particular language.
Oral kids STILL have significent LANGUAGE issues. For example, its very common for an oral kid to say stuff like "How many spiders have legs?" for "How many legs do spiders have?"
Yes, it's good that they can talk clearly, but that doesn't help all that much if they want to express themselves at a higher language level.

**Cheri** · 11-18-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Placement in an oral communication educational setting is also associated with more speech production improvement than placement in a total communication setting.

That's full of bologna. something here for you to read, Cloggy.

raising deaf kids

It's an interesting story about a hearing mother finds hope for her son, Rick

Quote:

Ricky's parents were frustrated by the bad experience with the audiologist, and also very upset about their son's hearing loss. They didn't know what their options were

She also fitted him with hearing aids. The hearing aids helped him a little bit, but not much

Ricky's parents talked to their new audiologist and several other audiologists about their options for Ricky. All of them gave very similar advice. They all said it was important to choose a communication method right away, and stick to it as a whole family, so that Ricky could start learning to communicate as soon as possible. But no audiologist would ever tell the family to choose one method over another. No one would say that total communication was better than oral, or that sign language alone was better than total communication.

I think the most difficult thing was getting unbiased information because there wasn't any unbiased information there and you were in the middle of this huge political debate�It was really very difficult to get information�I became quite resentful of the fact that there was very little information around that was accessible to parents who have to make these decisions because no one can make them for you

In the end, Ricky's parents decided on total communication by getting rid of other options that they didn't like.

Ricky's parents wanted him to be able to communicate orally. But they decided against a strictly oral approach because they didn't like any of the oral schools they visited.

The total communication preschool they visited seemed like "a much more comfortable setting," according to Ricky's mother. It was "more established and organized.

I met with a number of people who had deaf children from both sides of the road. And typically the kids who were totally oral had a horrible childhood because their parents couldn't communicate with them

Ricky's audiologist was the first to tell the family about cochlear implants, when Ricky was 2 years old. She said Ricky might be a good candidate, especially because his hearing aids weren't helping him as much as everyone had hoped.

The surgery was very successful. After two years, Ricky's parents are still using total communication with Ricky, unlike a lot of families who drop sign language soon after their child gets a cochlear implant.

**shel90** · 11-18-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

That's full of bologna. something here for you to read, Cloggy.

raising deaf kids

It's an interesting story about a hearing mother finds hope for her son, Rick

Yes that is very interesting and very touching. Shows that the parents are thinking of Ricky's needs. Also, it is apparent the parents listened to those deaf people's horrible experiences in the oral only programs to help them make the decision.

jillio · 11-18-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaitin

To me this seems like a complicated issue with many possible answers and articles with different conclusions.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.43 1185-1204 October 2000: Speech, Vocabulary, and the Education of Children Using Cochlear Implants - Oral or Total Communication?

This study examines the relationship between the teaching method, oral or total communication, used at children's schools and children's consonant-production accuracy and vocabulary development over time. Children who participated in the study (N=147) demonstrated profound sensorineural hearing loss and had used cochlear implants for between 6 months and 10 years. Educational programs that used an oral communication (OC) approach focused on the development of spoken language, whereas educational programs that used a total communication (TC) approach focused on the development of language using both signed and spoken language. Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) we compared the consonant-production accuracy, receptive spoken vocabulary, and expressive spoken and/or signed vocabulary skills, over time, of children who were enrolled in schools that used either OC or TC approaches, while controlling for a number of variables. These variables included age at implantation, preoperative aided speech detection thresholds, type of cochlear implant device used, and whether a complete or incomplete active electrode array was implanted. The results of this study indicated that as they used their implants the children demonstrated improved consonant-production accuracy and expressive and receptive vocabulary over time, regardless of whether their school employed a TC or OC teaching method. Furthermore, there appeared to be a complex relationship among children's performance with the cochlear implant, age at implantation, and communication/teaching strategy employed by the school. Controlling for all variables, children in OC programs demonstrated, on average, superior consonant-production accuracy, with significantly greater rates of improvement in consonant-production accuracy scores over time compared to children in TC programs. However, there was no significant difference between OC and TC groups in performance or rate of growth in consonant-production accuracy when children received their implants before the age of 5 years. There was no significant difference between the OC and TC groups in receptive spoken vocabulary scores or in rate of improvement over time. However, children in the TC group achieved significantly higher receptive spoken vocabulary scores than children in the OC group if they received their implant before the age of 5 years. The TC group demonstrated superior scores and rates of growth on the expressive vocabulary measure (spoken and/or signed) when compared to the OC group if they received their implants during their preschool or early elementary school years. There was no significant difference if the children received their implants during middle elementary school. Regardless of whether children were in the OC or TC group, children who received their implants during preschool demonstrated stronger performance, on average, on all measures over time than children who received their implants during their elementary school years. The results of this study suggest that children may benefit from using cochlear implants regardless of the communication strategy/teaching approach employed by their school program and that other considerations, such as the age at which children receive implants, are more important. Implications and future research needs are discussed.

---

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1982 Sep-Oct;97:62-72: Speech and language development in a parent-infant total communication program.

In the program described, the use of total communication (TC) did not impede speech development in preschool deaf children. Evidence indicates that sign language facilitated the young hearing-impaired child's acquisition of communicative oral speech. Exposure to sign language combined with speech enhanced the meaningfulness of residual hearing and lipreading. Milestones in sign language acquisition paralleled the milestones of spoken language. Young hearing-impaired TC children appeared to learn and express more language at an earlier age than is typical of orally trained hearing-impaired children. This implies that their cognition may not be as severely inhibited because their language acquisition is less severely delayed. This should have favorable consequences for later educational and social development. The families In the TC program were able to normalize their child-rearing activities and relationships.

You have become very skilled in your research application! I'm proud of you.

(Sorry, off topic!)

Kaitin · 11-18-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

You have become very skilled in your research application! I'm proud of you.

(Sorry, off topic!)

, Jillio!

Now I think I read every CI article in PubMed probably three times or more.

(Sorry for more off topic!)

jillio · 11-18-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Yes that is very interesting and very touching. Shows that the parents are thinking of Ricky's needs. Also, it is apparent the parents listened to those deaf people's horrible experiences in the oral only programs to help them make the decision.

It always makes me feel hopeful when I hear of parents who actually take the deaf perspective into account when making decisions for their deaf children. These parents obviously were attempting to see things fromthe persepctive of their deaf child's needs rather than from the perspective of their needs for their child.

rick48 · 11-18-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaitin

To me this seems like a complicated issue with many possible answers and articles with different conclusions.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.43 1185-1204 October 2000: Speech, Vocabulary, and the Education of Children Using Cochlear Implants - Oral or Total Communication?

This study examines the relationship between the teaching method, oral or total communication, used at children's schools and children's consonant-production accuracy and vocabulary development over time. Children who participated in the study (N=147) demonstrated profound sensorineural hearing loss and had used cochlear implants for between 6 months and 10 years. Educational programs that used an oral communication (OC) approach focused on the development of spoken language, whereas educational programs that used a total communication (TC) approach focused on the development of language using both signed and spoken language. Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) we compared the consonant-production accuracy, receptive spoken vocabulary, and expressive spoken and/or signed vocabulary skills, over time, of children who were enrolled in schools that used either OC or TC approaches, while controlling for a number of variables. These variables included age at implantation, preoperative aided speech detection thresholds, type of cochlear implant device used, and whether a complete or incomplete active electrode array was implanted. The results of this study indicated that as they used their implants the children demonstrated improved consonant-production accuracy and expressive and receptive vocabulary over time, regardless of whether their school employed a TC or OC teaching method. Furthermore, there appeared to be a complex relationship among children's performance with the cochlear implant, age at implantation, and communication/teaching strategy employed by the school. Controlling for all variables, children in OC programs demonstrated, on average, superior consonant-production accuracy, with significantly greater rates of improvement in consonant-production accuracy scores over time compared to children in TC programs. However, there was no significant difference between OC and TC groups in performance or rate of growth in consonant-production accuracy when children received their implants before the age of 5 years. There was no significant difference between the OC and TC groups in receptive spoken vocabulary scores or in rate of improvement over time. However, children in the TC group achieved significantly higher receptive spoken vocabulary scores than children in the OC group if they received their implant before the age of 5 years. The TC group demonstrated superior scores and rates of growth on the expressive vocabulary measure (spoken and/or signed) when compared to the OC group if they received their implants during their preschool or early elementary school years. There was no significant difference if the children received their implants during middle elementary school. Regardless of whether children were in the OC or TC group, children who received their implants during preschool demonstrated stronger performance, on average, on all measures over time than children who received their implants during their elementary school years. The results of this study suggest that children may benefit from using cochlear implants regardless of the communication strategy/teaching approach employed by their school program and that other considerations, such as the age at which children receive implants, are more important. Implications and future research needs are discussed.

---

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1982 Sep-Oct;97:62-72: Speech and language development in a parent-infant total communication program.

In the program described, the use of total communication (TC) did not impede speech development in preschool deaf children. Evidence indicates that sign language facilitated the young hearing-impaired child's acquisition of communicative oral speech. Exposure to sign language combined with speech enhanced the meaningfulness of residual hearing and lipreading. Milestones in sign language acquisition paralleled the milestones of spoken language. Young hearing-impaired TC children appeared to learn and express more language at an earlier age than is typical of orally trained hearing-impaired children. This implies that their cognition may not be as severely inhibited because their language acquisition is less severely delayed. This should have favorable consequences for later educational and social development. The families In the TC program were able to normalize their child-rearing activities and relationships.

Both your article and Cloggy while they may differ as to the methodolgy that brings about results, leave no doubt as to the benefits of early impantation.

jillio · 11-18-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Both your article and Cloggy while they may differ as to the methodolgy that brings about results, leave no doubt as to the benefits of early impantation.

But Kailin's research goes a step farther, and discounts the myth that oral language only must be used to achieve maximum benefit, as well as addressing the issue of the CI as a tool for developing spoken language only. Much more comprensive and goes to the heart of langauge acquisition and use.....for improved communication and cognitive functioning, not simply speech.

rick48 · 11-18-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdyke

Cloggy, the study is highlighting that oral kids can go "boo be bah" better then TC kids. Just b/c someone can say something well, it doesn't mean that they have a handle on the meat and potatos of that particular language.
Oral kids STILL have significent LANGUAGE issues. For example, its very common for an oral kid to say stuff like "How many spiders have legs?" for "How many legs do spiders have?"
Yes, it's good that they can talk clearly, but that doesn't help all that much if they want to express themselves at a higher language level.

No, Cloggy's article demonstrates that for those children an oral setting was better than a TC children for the development of speech and in Kaitlin's article, it was a TC setting that worked better for those children.

In either case, they are talking about speech. Your attempt to diminimize the findings and to mock them by referring to speech as "boo-be-bah" is not only childish and immature but more of a reflection of you than those you are attempting to mock.

Whether it its oral or TC, the fact that cannot be disputed is that these children are developing speech as a result of their cis.

oh and BTW give the spider example a rest, it really has gotten old. Maybe the next time you talk to the guy who wrote the article that quoted the woman who said something that somebody else said once or twice that you read in some book written by some person you can get some new material.

rick48 · 11-18-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

That's full of bologna. something here for you to read, Cloggy.

raising deaf kids

It's an interesting story about a hearing mother finds hope for her son, Rick

Funny, that you left out this part of the story:

Ricky's parents are happy with Ricky's progress so far. He is learning a lot of language at school and at home with the implant.

Learning new words
I mean we work, we do work. We do a lot of stuff with our kids related to language. We talk incessantly. In our house it is constant. My mother comes in and says, 'Why don't you be quiet?'

We have Ricky enrolled in a very good program, and the staff here and the program here are fabulous for Ricky. He loves it. He came home the other day with a pink flower that they made out of bits of tissue paper stuck all over it. I said to him, 'What's this?' 'Hyacinth,' he said. I nearly fell off my chair! Because, (a) he knows the name of the flower, but he actually said it, he didn't sign it. Because who knows what sign 'hyacinth' is. You probably spell it out. But, the point is that the program here is giving him a lot of rich language which is great...

— Ricky's Mother

We made the right choice.
For Ricky the implant has been great. Combining that with total communication has absolutely been the right thing for Ricky. Because he has learned the language. As soon as he feels comfortable that you will understand what he is saying, he drops the sign and moves on. So for us, it has been great. Because, pile new language into him and he will use it and use it and use it and then drop the signing, move on and use something else. He is funny. He is great!

"As soon as he feels comfortable that you will understand what he is saying. he drops the sign and moves on"

Sounds a lot like Lotte, doesn't he Cloggy. Guess he is demonstrating the same preference for spoken language that Lotte has.

Funny isn't it that Ricky's Mom gets praise and you get flack? With both children there are concerned parents, actively involved in their children's language development who chose the cochlear implant. Go figure.

jillio · 11-18-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Funny, that you left out this part of the story:

Ricky's parents are happy with Ricky's progress so far. He is learning a lot of language at school and at home with the implant.

Learning new words
I mean we work, we do work. We do a lot of stuff with our kids related to language. We talk incessantly. In our house it is constant. My mother comes in and says, 'Why don't you be quiet?'

We have Ricky enrolled in a very good program, and the staff here and the program here are fabulous for Ricky. He loves it. He came home the other day with a pink flower that they made out of bits of tissue paper stuck all over it. I said to him, 'What's this?' 'Hyacinth,' he said. I nearly fell off my chair! Because, (a) he knows the name of the flower, but he actually said it, he didn't sign it. Because who knows what sign 'hyacinth' is. You probably spell it out. But, the point is that the program here is giving him a lot of rich language which is great...

— Ricky's Mother

We made the right choice.
For Ricky the implant has been great. Combining that with total communication has absolutely been the right thing for Ricky. Because he has learned the language. As soon as he feels comfortable that you will understand what he is saying, he drops the sign and moves on. So for us, it has been great. Because, pile new language into him and he will use it and use it and use it and then drop the signing, move on and use something else. He is funny. He is great!

"As soon as he feels comfortable that you will understand what he is saying. he drops the sign and moves on"

Sounds a lot like Lotte, doesn't he Cloggy. Guess he is demonstrating the same preference for spoken language that Lotte has.

Funny isn't it that Ricky's Mom gets praise and you get flack? With both children there are concerned parents, actively involved in their children's language development who chose the cochlear implant. Go figure.

Bolded statement says it all. He is an a TC environment both educationally and at home. Therein lies the difference.

**Cheri** · 11-19-2007, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Funny, that you left out this part of the story:.

I only quote some of the story because the story is too long, I even provide a link of the story so everyone can read throughly. I don't see what's the big deal about it, rick.

Isn't providing a link is enough? or not enough for you?

**Cheri** · 11-19-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Funny isn't it that Ricky's Mom gets praise and you get flack?

If you can read very carefully where it says that "unlike alot of families who drop sign language soon after their child gets cochlear implants." Which is true, beside Ricky's mother had not dropped signs, she kept the same communication method after her son had the cochlear implant. This is what I praise her for.

Have you uses signs with your daughter? no. Have Cloggy continuing with signs with his daughter? no--therefore I made my point.

Cloggy · 11-19-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

...............
Sounds a lot like Lotte, doesn't he Cloggy. Guess he is demonstrating the same preference for spoken language that Lotte has.

Funny isn't it that Ricky's Mom gets praise and you get flack? With both children there are concerned parents, actively involved in their children's language development who chose the cochlear implant. Go figure.

flip · 11-19-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

[B][SIZE="4"]
A large percentage (46 to 97%) of the young cochlear implant users produced acoustic characteristics with values within the range found for children with normal hearing. Exceptions were sentence duration and vowel duration in sentence-initial words, for which only 23 and 25%, respectively, of the COCHLEAR IMPLANT users had values within the normal range.

"46 to 97%" was a very unprecise number, though I am not suprised about such unclear conclusions from advertisement concealed as research

Good luck on your search for the holy grail, that gives CI a 100% sucess, with no nasty numbers on exceptions, like 77-75 % failure in uttering properly in sentence-intial words.

jag · 11-19-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

"46 to 97%" was a very unprecise number, though I am not suprised about such unclear conclusions from advertisement concealed as research

Good luck on your search for the holy grail, that gives CI a 100% sucess, with no nasty numbers on exceptions, like 77-75 % failure in uttering properly in sentence-intial words.

Exactly where did any of those of us who use CI's or have kids with CI's state anything about 100% success? I'm really curious. I concider mine to be a success and I only tested in the mid 80's. The thing is I got what I wanted from it. While there may be some idiots who get the Ci's thinking that the results will be 100% around here I don't see that expectation. I don't see it on other CI lists I'm on either.

It doesn't say but I would think the 46 to 97 involves different sounds which were measured separately. That could be written better.

vallee · 11-19-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jag

Exactly where did any of those of us who use CI's or have kids with CI's state anything about 100% success? I'm really curious. I concider mine to be a success and I only tested in the mid 80's. The thing is I got what I wanted from it. While there may be some idiots who get the Ci's thinking that the results will be 100% around here I don't see that expectation. I don't see it on other CI lists I'm on either.

It doesn't say but I would think the 46 to 97 involves different sounds which were measured separately. That could be written better.

I agree.

I think mine is a success as well. I view each ear separately. I went from nothing in my right ear to being about to understand words, sounds, sentences, and sound directions. There is no 100% with CIs. I tested high but I work everyday with sounds and words on tape. I spend hours practicing.

Jag - good posting.

jillio · 11-19-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallee

I agree.

I think mine is a success as well. I view each ear separately. I went from nothing in my right ear to being about to understand words, sounds, sentences, and sound directions. There is no 100% with CIs. I tested high but I work everyday with sounds and words on tape. I spend hours practicing.

Jag - good posting.

You seem to missing the point of the limited portion of the article that was originally posted. The testing was not done to indicate receptive abilities of deaf children with CI, but on the expressive correctness of their pronunciation. It is about their ability to pronounce words only.

vallee · 11-19-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

You seem to missing the point of the limited portion of the article that was originally posted. The testing was not done to indicate receptive abilities of deaf children with CI, but on the expressive correctness of their pronunciation. It is about their ability to pronounce words only.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I view it as an blog not an article. I see it as opinions not facts. You do realize that some statements may be facts but provide false.

Also I was a deaf/hoh child. I lived it! I understand it. My hearing dog wakes me up every morning, I can't hear the alarm clock. Must be nice for you to hear your alarm clock each morning!

**shel90** · 11-19-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallee

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I view it as an blog not an article. I see it as opinions not facts. You do realize that some statements may be facts but provide false.

Also I was a deaf/hoh child. I lived it! I understand it. My hearing dog wakes me up every morning, I can't hear the alarm clock. Must be nice for you to hear your alarm clock each morning!

Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts.

I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore.

vallee · 11-19-2007, 07:43 PM

[QUOTE=shel90;872493]Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts.

I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore.

[/QUOTEI

I never said worst. I am stating that I live the life. You live the life. I accept being deaf. I also accept hearing with my CI. I don't accept judgement by people or limitations by people. I view Jillio as so anti-CI, and against anything and anyone with CIs.

**shel90** · 11-19-2007, 07:44 PM

[QUOTE=vallee;872501]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts.

I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore.

[/QUOTEI

I never said worst. I am stating that I live the life. You live the life. I accept being deaf. I also accept hearing with my CI. I don't accept judgement by people or limitations by people. I view Jillio as so anti-CI, and against anything and anyone with CIs.

I never said that u said worst. I was talking about my view of deafness.

jillio · 11-19-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallee

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I view it as an blog not an article. I see it as opinions not facts. You do realize that some statements may be facts but provide false.

Also I was a deaf/hoh child. I lived it! I understand it. My hearing dog wakes me up every morning, I can't hear the alarm clock. Must be nice for you to hear your alarm clock each morning!

First of all, it states right up front that it is an article. Secondly, it contains an abstract, and I don't know of any blog format that requires an abstract. Thirdly, it contains a description of the research design. Fourthly, it contains a results and discussion section. And the fifth section, identified as "Conclusions" is the only section that could be considered to be "opinion" as it is based on the writer's interpretation of the data. However, I would be reluctant to even call that opinion, as all interpretation of research data is held to objective standards. Therefore, I would suggest that the post is not the product of a blog entry, but of a research article. However, the article was so pared down so as to prevent the reader from evaluating the methodology and statistical analysis of the data collected.

What does your hearing dog, or your inability to heat your alarm clock have to do with the speech production of CI users? Likewise, what does my ability to hear an alarm have to do with the speech production of young deaf CI users? This topic addresses the very real life situation of literacy and communication of deaf children, and the implied question is whether it is better to have a child that can repeat speech sounds like a parrot, or one that is capable of using and understanding language at an advanced level.

jillio · 11-19-2007, 07:52 PM

[QUOTE=vallee;872501]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts.

I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore.

[/QUOTEI

I never said worst. I am stating that I live the life. You live the life. I accept being deaf. I also accept hearing with my CI. I don't accept judgement by people or limitations by people. I view Jillio as so anti-CI, and against anything and anyone with CIs.

Then you have seriously misjudged me. I am against oral only environments, not CI. I have stated numerous times that I consider CI to be a personal choice. I advocate for parents to receive all of the pertinent information available prior to making the life altering decision that they propose to make for a deaf child, and that information is inclusive of the educational implications and the liguistic implications. And, as you have stated that you are an educator of students with disabilities, I would think that this would be a primary concern for you, as well. It is difficult, indeed, to understand an educator of students with disabilites who is satisfied with the status quo of deaf education. Unless, of course, that educator is simply one more of the professionalized "hearing" teachers who have been indoctrinated to belief that lower literacy scores and language delays are inherent in deafness and not the result of ineffective communication and teaching methodology.

And where, pray tell, do you see me judging you on the basis of your CI usage? That has nothing to do with the psot that you responded to. I simply said that you were failing to recognize that the article was talking about expressive abilites only, because you kept referring to those things that constitute receptive abilities.

jillio · 11-19-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts.

I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore.

Thanks for the attempt, shel. I think we both realize that this remark came from a personal adjustment issue, and not from anything remotely related to the topic.

vallee · 11-19-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

What does your hearing dog, or your inability to heat your alarm clock have to do with the speech production of CI users? Likewise, what does my ability to hear an alarm have to do with the speech production of young deaf CI users? This topic addresses the very real life situation of literacy and communication of deaf children, and the implied question is whether it is better to have a child that can repeat speech sounds like a parrot, or one that is capable of using and understanding language at an advanced level.

You pass so much judgement on others, that I was shocked that you are hearing. I took what you said to someone else in a post and I went back and read your intro post. I'm shocked at so much judgement you pass. Yes you have a son who is deaf, but you know nothing of what it is like to be deaf. You talk about CI and children, language, speech development - know what I have been there, done that. Myself!

jillio · 11-19-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallee

You pass so much judgement on others, that I was shocked that you are hearing. I took what you said to someone else in a post and I went back and read your intro post. I'm shocked at so much judgement you pass. Yes you have a son who is deaf, but you know nothing of what it is like to be deaf. You talk about CI and children, language, speech development - know what I have been there, done that. Myself!

And all of that still has nothing to do with the topic of the article. And if anyone is passing judgement in the here and now, it would be you, considering the posts you are making, and the innacurate assumptions you are tossing around.

So, now, the deaf are overly judgemental? Is that what you mean by being shocked that I am hearing? That's quite a stereotype that you have thrown out.

Where do you see judgement in my intro post? It would appear that you are looking for judgment where none exists, and are seeing it because of your own personal defensiveness toward any information that portrays the the fact that oral environment and CI is not the panacea you would like to believe it is.

And, I have noticed that you do not reply, nor quote me in entirety, but choose only those portions that you believe support your view of me as jedgmental and anti-CI. Neither view is accurate, and that is quite obvious if you take my words in their entirty and in context.

11-18-2007, 03:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Cloggy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Norway Posts: 4,706	Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users: A Comparison with Normal-Hearing Age-Mates. Article Ear & Hearing. 24(1) Supplement:90S-105S, February 2003. Uchanski, Rosalie M.; Geers, Ann E. Abstract: Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare select acoustic characteristics of the speech of deaf children who use cochlear implants (young cochlear implant users) with those of children with normal hearing. A secondary objective of this study was to examine the effect, if any, of the deaf child's education (oral versus total communication) on the similarity of these acoustic characteristics to those of normal-hearing age-mates. Design: Speech was recorded from 181 young cochlear implant users and from 24 children with normal hearing. All speech was produced by imitation, and consisted of complete sentences. Acoustic measures included voice onset time (/t/, /d/), second formant frequency (/i/, /[Latin small letter open o]/), spectral moments (mean, skew and kurtosis of /s/ and /[Latin small letter esh]/), a nasal manner metric, and durations (of vowels, words, and sentences). Results and Discussion: A large percentage (46 to 97%) of the young cochlear implant users produced acoustic characteristics with values within the range found for children with normal hearing. Exceptions were sentence duration and vowel duration in sentence-initial words, for which only 23 and 25%, respectively, of the COCHLEAR IMPLANT users had values within the normal range. Additionally, for most of the acoustic measures, significantly more COCHLEAR IMPLANT users from oral than from total communication settings had values within the normal range. Conclusions: Compared with deaf children with hearing aids (from previous studies by others), deaf children who use cochlear implants have improved speech production skills, as reflected in the acoustic measures of this study. Placement in an oral communication educational setting is also associated with more speech production improvement than placement in a total communication setting. __________________ . The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. . . . Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) Information about . . . . . . . . . Lotte Sofie . . . . . . . . . How the ear works . . . . . . . . . Parents info . . . . . . . . . Nonsense/ Myths about CI here or here.

11-19-2007, 07:43 PM	#24 (permalink)
vallee Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,216	[QUOTE=shel90;872493]Why is that so nice? We have flashing alarms and in my opinion, there is no difference between a light bulb and the sound of an alarm ringing. I used to think like that about how nice that hearing people can hear this or that and it drove me nuts. I dont know..maybe in my view, there are worst things than being deaf which is why I dont wish I can hear this or that anymore. [/QUOTEI I never said worst. I am stating that I live the life. You live the life. I accept being deaf. I also accept hearing with my CI. I don't accept judgement by people or limitations by people. I view Jillio as so anti-CI, and against anything and anyone with CIs. __________________ Right and Left Implanted July 19, 2007 Activated August 9, 2007 Both Advanced Bionics Harmony

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

11-18-2007, 04:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	I guess that's great if all you are concerned about is how a deaf child produces speech through imitation.

11-18-2007, 04:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kaitin Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 845 Blog Entries: 23	To me this seems like a complicated issue with many possible answers and articles with different conclusions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.43 1185-1204 October 2000: Speech, Vocabulary, and the Education of Children Using Cochlear Implants - Oral or Total Communication? This study examines the relationship between the teaching method, oral or total communication, used at children's schools and children's consonant-production accuracy and vocabulary development over time. Children who participated in the study (N=147) demonstrated profound sensorineural hearing loss and had used cochlear implants for between 6 months and 10 years. Educational programs that used an oral communication (OC) approach focused on the development of spoken language, whereas educational programs that used a total communication (TC) approach focused on the development of language using both signed and spoken language. Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) we compared the consonant-production accuracy, receptive spoken vocabulary, and expressive spoken and/or signed vocabulary skills, over time, of children who were enrolled in schools that used either OC or TC approaches, while controlling for a number of variables. These variables included age at implantation, preoperative aided speech detection thresholds, type of cochlear implant device used, and whether a complete or incomplete active electrode array was implanted. The results of this study indicated that as they used their implants the children demonstrated improved consonant-production accuracy and expressive and receptive vocabulary over time, regardless of whether their school employed a TC or OC teaching method. Furthermore, there appeared to be a complex relationship among children's performance with the cochlear implant, age at implantation, and communication/teaching strategy employed by the school. Controlling for all variables, children in OC programs demonstrated, on average, superior consonant-production accuracy, with significantly greater rates of improvement in consonant-production accuracy scores over time compared to children in TC programs. However, there was no significant difference between OC and TC groups in performance or rate of growth in consonant-production accuracy when children received their implants before the age of 5 years. There was no significant difference between the OC and TC groups in receptive spoken vocabulary scores or in rate of improvement over time. However, children in the TC group achieved significantly higher receptive spoken vocabulary scores than children in the OC group if they received their implant before the age of 5 years. The TC group demonstrated superior scores and rates of growth on the expressive vocabulary measure (spoken and/or signed) when compared to the OC group if they received their implants during their preschool or early elementary school years. There was no significant difference if the children received their implants during middle elementary school. Regardless of whether children were in the OC or TC group, children who received their implants during preschool demonstrated stronger performance, on average, on all measures over time than children who received their implants during their elementary school years. The results of this study suggest that children may benefit from using cochlear implants regardless of the communication strategy/teaching approach employed by their school program and that other considerations, such as the age at which children receive implants, are more important. Implications and future research needs are discussed. --- Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1982 Sep-Oct;97:62-72: Speech and language development in a parent-infant total communication program. In the program described, the use of total communication (TC) did not impede speech development in preschool deaf children. Evidence indicates that sign language facilitated the young hearing-impaired child's acquisition of communicative oral speech. Exposure to sign language combined with speech enhanced the meaningfulness of residual hearing and lipreading. Milestones in sign language acquisition paralleled the milestones of spoken language. Young hearing-impaired TC children appeared to learn and express more language at an earlier age than is typical of orally trained hearing-impaired children. This implies that their cognition may not be as severely inhibited because their language acquisition is less severely delayed. This should have favorable consequences for later educational and social development. The families In the TC program were able to normalize their child-rearing activities and relationships.

11-18-2007, 06:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
deafdyke Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Trebekistan Posts: 13,093	Cloggy, the study is highlighting that oral kids can go "boo be bah" better then TC kids. Just b/c someone can say something well, it doesn't mean that they have a handle on the meat and potatos of that particular language. Oral kids STILL have significent LANGUAGE issues. For example, its very common for an oral kid to say stuff like "How many spiders have legs?" for "How many legs do spiders have?" Yes, it's good that they can talk clearly, but that doesn't help all that much if they want to express themselves at a higher language level.