Hearing people's view of CI

[Grayma]

Is there a difference between how the CI works for somebody born deaf and somebody late deafened?
A good friend of mine told me this week that her uncle lost his hearing as an adult, was deaf for 12 years, and then got CIs. He lost his hearing before his children were born.
He's thrilled to hear his wife's voice again and to hear his kids for the first time, and he doesn't think it sounds that different.

Is that just because he hasn't heard for 12 years?

 

[HH scientist]

I am one of those sinners who thought that CI can "restore" hearing. It is quite complicated, I now realize.

Here is a video about CI and music: Charles Limb: Building the musical muscle | Video on TED.com. The guy there says that listening to music is difficult or impossible with CI. But if you once learn to play an instrument, you can retain that ability.

 

[DeafCaroline]

...and...be afraid, be Very afraid, US govts and Alien govts on the moon have ordered the implants to moniter and have a switch to flick if they want you to go on Postal rage so to cover up a 'suicide'...Be AFRAID,....that is; the hidden intergalactic ALIEN conspiracy (stationed on our moon , just watch the "Apollo 18" film, this is the clue to is hidden agenda.......

I'm quaking in my boots.

 

[shel90]

Before CIs, those very same Deaf schools who focused on ASL with English in the written form have produced deaf people who can speak English on the spoken form so what`s the problem?

 

[set2]

Grayma,

Late deafened adults tend to benefit more with CIs because they have "auditory" memory. This auditory memory helps ones brain make sense of all the the beeps and strange noises one hears at first with an implant. I am late deafened and have bilateral CIs. Like your friend,s Uncle I also find that things don't sound all that different. If someone was born deaf it will be harder and take longer to learn to hear with the implants because they won't have the auditory memory.

 

[shel90]

Has there never been a time in your life where you took notice of someone different than you? Such as someone in a wheelchair, someone who has a head injury, someone who has spinal bifida, someone who is blind, someone who lost an arm or leg? And you think to yourself, "thank god I don't have to deal with that?" because you thank your lucky stars that you are as intact as you are? It isn't about empathy, it's about already thinking you are better off than the very scenarios I just described. The deaf get this very same non-empathy, "thank god, I'm so sorry stuff." This isn't about education and information. It's about relief, and that you are better off than the very person you are thinking about.

Even though I quoted your post, CSign, it was used as a reference and all "you"s are general you.

Oh my gosh, the "I feel so sorry for you`s" when telling people that I am deaf and need to read their lips are just downright rude.

 

[deafskeptic]

The deaf community have allways been spot on with CI. Telling us that most deaf people don't know what CI is a grave insult and audists. I have friends and relatives with CI, and I still oppose it as necessary in many cases. As a professonial, I met houndreds of parents each year, and know for sure you are wrong when you try to make it sound as straighforward as you do. The process of deciding on CI vary from parent to parent, and asking the right questions will reveal a lot of uncertainity about the decision, even after the decision is made, CI or not.

Your "Informed choices" have it's orgin in medical thinking, and lacks input from sociology, linquistics and psychology. Parents are under pressure popular science with their focus on miracle medicines, the thrust genereal population have in medicine as a safety net and lack of understanding from the surroundings on deafness. But none of this are of interest for you, and it says a lot.

Once one of my mother's maids told me that she thought my CI was a miracle. My CI is just a tool and an imperfect one at that.


What makes people think that parents of deaf kids would be any better informed than my mother's maid?

 

[deafdyke]

Sure DD, I think there are some great deaf schools that have some strong focus on developing spoken language and have good speech therapy programs, but those are auditory-oral schools, right? Or are you referring to TC-type programs? My daughter's bi-bi school is very intentionally focused on ASL, they enforce a pretty strict voices-off policy, and for good reason: accessibility for all students, whether they have some access to sound or none at all.

And Grendel, that is VERY audist thinking that only auditory-oral schools can provide good spoken language development/speech therapy.
VERY audist. Almost all students at schools for the Deaf(including signing schools) get a VERY hefty dose of speech and spoken language therapies.

 

[shel90]

And Grendel, that is VERY audist thinspot on!king that only auditory-oral schools can provide good spoken language development/speech therapy.
VERY audist. Almost all students at schools for the Deaf(including signing schools) get a VERY hefty dose of speech and spoken language therapies.

spot on!

 

[deafdyke]

spot on!

Thank you shel!

Bajagirl, others care to jump in? The ONLY reason why AG Bell and audist parents think that speech therapy at schools for the deaf suck is b/c it's not a Whole Day Speech Therapy Session, as it is at oral schools and programs. Granted there are exceptions, like at Utah Schools (and quite frankly I think that has more to do with the fact that the school is administrated by a hardcore oralist who is diverting resources to oralists instead of providing a whole toolbox approach.) But overall, many many kids at deaf schools get a VERY hefty dose of speech therapy......heck there's only about 1% voice off kids you know!

 

[shel90]

There are built in periods where kids who need/require it can be voice ON. This isn't radical voice off (absolutly no oral skills allowed)

She wins 500 points!

 

[deafdyke]

why the need to make reference to "Audist parents"?

I am not talking about hearing parents in general. I am talking about AUDIST parents. The ones who think that the ONLY way to improve their kid's speech is to put them in a 24/7 speech therapy session. (aka oral only)

 

[GrendelQ]

...Almost all students at schools for the Deaf(including signing schools) get a VERY hefty dose of speech and spoken language therapies.

I think this varies significantly from school to school, DD. At my daughter's school the focus is not on speech and spoken language therapies, but on learning and interacting with one another in ASL. Students and staff are actively not permitted to use voice for the majority of the day, doesn't matter whether they are deaf without listening aids, deaf or HOH with CIs / HAs, or hearing. If a student exhibits a preference for using spoken language and doesn't comply with the voices off requirements, he or she is transitioned to one of the many regional (oral) deaf programs nearby or into the mainstream. I don't know if you would consider that "radical", but the intention is that communication be accessible to all, that no one is excluded from learning or interacting. It's not a Total Communication program in which whatever communication method works for each individual child is utilized, it's a bi-bi program in which ASL is the primary language of instruction and interaction and (written) English is taught as a subject. There's a strong push to increase the amount of written English incorporated throughout the curriculum.

There is a very small cohort of CI-using or Hearing students separated out into an auditory access classroom for a part of each day, in which teachers and students are permitted to use both spoken and signed language, but this doesn't involve speech therapy. This handful of students are the only ones who use spoken language during a part of the school day.

 

[flip]

No, I don't live near DC, but in the Boston area -- not among what Flip calls "deaf freaks living out in the wild" (?!) Most people that I encounter, deaf and hearing alike, are pretty well-informed in general, just not familiar with how CIs work and what they can and can't provide. In fact, some people with older CIs themselves are unfamiliar with the newer tech.

My point was that I would not be angry or frustrated with people for not knowing how CIs work or expect that they ought to know more, and would be happy to share what I know and what we experience, both good and bad.

These are not stupid or backwards people as you seem to suggest, they just may have not had hands-on training with a CI or learned specifically how they work. Most people haven't. My pediatrician had heard of CIs, but knew very little beyond knowing that they existed. It isn't that doctor's specialty, and the dr. didn't pretend to know anything about CIs, had a ton of questions for us. I've encountered teachers of the deaf who were shocked that students could hear whispers or talking from outside the room, hadn't realized how distracting all that sound input could be, and another who was broadcasting really loudly using the FM system in a way that works great with her kids using HAs and needed extra high volume, but was distorting sound for those with CIs. I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't have a CI or a child with a CI or who hasn't been formally trained in CIs to know a great deal about them, just as I don't expect the average person to know the ins and outs of a hip replacement or a pacemaker.

About 2 years ago, when a relatively large group of children with CIs were enrolled at my daughter's ASL-based school for the deaf, the school's administration felt the need to bring in experts on CIs to educate the staff -- because although they were far more informed than the average person, and all had some contact with CIs of course, they found that the staff really didn't know much about how they worked and were operating under some outdated and inaccurate info about CIs. The staff is about 45% deaf, but that doesn't mean either those who were deaf or hearing knew a whole lot about CIs -- the school's medical staff included. In fact, most didn't. Everyone learned a great deal and shared some great questions and insight. They intend to do these sessions regularly.

So you are telling us to stop to roll eyes back along with stephanie21, and seriously listen to your dull ranting about staff members, bilingual schools and campers?

It's a bit refreshing that a hearing people can roll eyes over those wild ideas many hearing people have about CI, too, you know. I never said anyone is stupid or have it backward, that's your words, and a bit insulting you know.

My advice is not to take the post from stephanie21 so personal, it just makes us roll eyes at you, too.

 

[flip]

I am not talking about hearing parents in general. I am talking about AUDIST parents. The ones who think that the ONLY way to improve their kid's speech is to put them in a 24/7 speech therapy session. (aka oral only)

You don't have to go for 24 hours speech therapy to be an audist. Parents of bilingual kids can be audist as well.

 

[deafskeptic]

And Grendel, that is VERY audist thinking that only auditory-oral schools can provide good spoken language development/speech therapy.
VERY audist. Almost all students at schools for the Deaf(including signing schools) get a VERY hefty dose of speech and spoken language therapies.

Exactly. I know two DODs from VSDB who are brother and sister and they both had better speech than their Deaf dad who taught at the high school there. To my knowledge, neither of them ever went to any other school than VSDB.

 

[CSign]

Once one of my mother's maids told me that she thought my CI was a miracle. My CI is just a tool and an imperfect one at that.


What makes people think that parents of deaf kids would be any better informed than my mother's maid?

When a child is diagnosed, parents receive all kinds of information. They get linked up with early intervention, which also provides information and skills to enable the child to make progress. Ideally, they go on to seek out more information- which is what I've observed more often than not. So, I'd say most parents know more about deafness than your mothers maid who had limited exposure.

 

[dogmom]

How can most parents know more about deafness if they're hearing?

 

[drphil]

Easy dogmom: read the various comments here! Also check the public library as well.

Not exactly a difficult exercise to imagine-silence-is it? At least it wasn't to me prior to becoming bilateral DEAF in 2006.

 

[Cheetah]

Easy dogmom: read the various comments here! Also check the public library as well.

Not exactly a difficult exercise to imagine-silence-is it? At least it wasn't to me prior to becoming bilateral DEAF in 2006.

I'm sure there are plenty of hearing people that would have a hard time imagining pure silence.

Of course, I have no memory of having that kind of hearing... Maybe a hearing person can chime in and add their thoughts.