Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users

jillio said:
Exactly how do you see a parent who learns another language, provides speech therapy, hearing aids, exposure to the Deaf community, an enrichened liguistic environment, and involvement in their child's education as selfish? That is a parent that has changed much of their own way of life in order to accommodate their child's needs. They have put their child's needs first and foremost. Nothing selfish about it.
Click to expand...
I agree. And if you would really read my post... that's what I said.
THESE parents made a decision. THEY took a decision!

I'm talking about people that "let the children decide" and thereby don't take the responsibility to make the decision.

You decided for your son- he had no say in the matter, we decided for our daughter- she had no say in the matter; we took responsibility.!
 
jillio said:
What does a hangover have to do with anything?

What if the malfunction has nothing to do with batteries? Just read an account in Hands and Vioces where a child's CI just suddenly stopped working. This is not the first account of something like this happening. The only solution is reimplantation. What does an oral CI child do for educational services between malfunction and reimplantation, Clogggy? They don't know sign, the CI has stopped working, residual hearing has been destroyed so the HA is no longer effective, and the classroom is not a conducive atmosphere for speech reading. What does that child do? Where is the backup plan?

Your buddy Rick is the one that brought this issue up by stating that a signing child was overly dependent, and that terps failed to show up for classes, leaving that child without support services and unable to learn for the day. Children who use terps have back up plans. There are always PRN terps on call, just as there are always subsitute teachers on call. So that blows his reasoning out of the water.

So, tell me , Cloggy, what is the back up plan for that child? You stil haven't answered the question, but simply tried to divert the topic to something regarding hangovers. To compare a nonfunctioning CI to a hangover is indication that you obviously don't see malfunction and leaving a child with no communication skills at all as a result of an oral only environment to be a serious issue.
Click to expand...
Such a misinterpretation.... but that's your MO.. willingly misinterpretating other posts..
I'm not comparing hangover and CI-misfunction. I am saying that missing a week due to illness is happening as well.... how do students cope with that?

You might want to ask me, Rick, or any other parent and user of CI how often they have a malfunction that would make the person helpless...

You make it look as if such a failure is common. It is not.
So, before you start spreading nonsense about all sorts of malfunctions... have a look in the real world.....

As for Lotte, she has never had a malfunction with the CI's that stopped all communication and was any sort of problem...

Rick....
In all your experience of you daughter having CI.... how many times did she have a serious malfunction.?? (Hangovers not included.. :) )
 
jillio said:
You seem to be quite adept at speaking for others. And I might remind you once again, Fuzzy was banned for the tactics you are now attempting to engage in. Didn't learn your lesson?

This isn't a ball game, rick. Stop trying to divvy up sides. You immaturity is hanging out in public again.
Click to expand...

Fuzzy's ban was over on November 18th, She has made a choice NOT to come back. I know since I e-mail her outside of this forum.
 
Cloggy said:
Such a misinterpretation.... but that's your MO.. willingly misinterpretating other posts..
I'm not comparing hangover and CI-misfunction. I am saying that missing a week due to illness is happening as well.... how do students cope with that?

You might want to ask me, Rick, or any other parent and user of CI how often they have a malfunction that would make the person helpless...

You make it look as if such a failure is common. It is not.
So, before you start spreading nonsense about all sorts of malfunctions... have a look in the real world.....

As for Lotte, she has never had a malfunction with the CI's that stopped all communication and was any sort of problem...

)
Click to expand...

After reading all this stuff about CI failure, I thought it was more common than it really is. As for my CIs I can't get up every morning worried that my CIs will fail. If they do, I have guildelines in place. I have sick leave from work. I have a great CI center that will see me that day. I have a doctor that I have his cell number If I need him. I can go with only one if I need to. I have batteries everywhere. I have four at home, two at school and two on my keyring. I have a recharger in my car, home, and school. I also have short term disability in place if I need to be off longer than I have sick leave(yes, it covers any CI problems).

We talk alot about CI problems for children. Children with HA problems too. My student forgets her at home some times. Students without batteries are a problems. And yes a child with a mild loss, without his communication device has a difficult time even if missing one day. Many do not have accommodations in place to assist. It is up to the teacher.
 
vallee said:
Will they learn ASL now?
Click to expand...

My dad...hahahaha! That would be like a dream so far out of reach. My mom finally realized after how much happier I have been since learning ASL and being involved in the Deaf culture, she should have learned a long time ago. She is trying to learn it but hard when I am 3,000 miles away. My brother tries to teach her but he is 31 years old and has his own life. My point was why didnt they or even my extended family learn for us when we were little especially I mean especially for my brother cuz that was his only source of communication? That is what Buffalo was referring and I was agreeing her. I see history repeating itself with many of the students and their parents. Even with children who have CIs. It is messed up.
 
deafdyke said:
As well as CI users who require oral 'terps, or oral accomondations. Rick and Jackie, you haven't answered why a Sign 'terp creates "dependancy", and yet using oral 'terps and oral accomondations don't.
And yes, rick and jackie, depedance on a service provider isn't the best thing in the world..........but we're just saying that dhh kids should have the CHOICE, and OPTION to utilize a 'terp. We're not saying it should be the ONLY option. Very few of us Deafies are pro-seperatist. You know.....It's ironic. There are a TON of ex-oral only folks who post here,(after all oral only is NOT NEW. It has been around for over a hundred years!) Yet where are the ex Sign folks who are now pro oral only? And I'm NOT talking about those folks who are pro oral after growing up with sign b/c they think that sign only is responsible for the low acheivement of the dhh world. (that's a very superfical way of looking at it, since the low acheivement levels are due to a whole BUNCH of causes)
Besides, oral only is very dependant on things like good technology, people who are good speakers (there are people who I can "hear" even without speechreading at ALL, but then again there are people with soft voices and things like that who I can't hear too well, even when they look right at me) good technology etc.
Hey Jackie.........................I have a question. What if your daughter's C-Print captionist didn't show up? It's exactly the same circumstance. Wouldn't she be in the same sitution b/c she can't function as well without the C-Print?
Click to expand...


Before I learned ASL, I was oral all the way and I used a CART for my college classes. One time the CART machine stopped working in the middle of the class. Arizona State had a team of ASL terps available but because I didnt know ASL at the time, I couldnt use one of their terps.

THE POINT IS...the MORE TOOLS the kid has THE MORE CHANCES for the kid to use different kinds of services.
 
vallee said:
After reading all this stuff about CI failure, I thought it was more common than it really is. As for my CIs I can't get up every morning worried that my CIs will fail. If they do, I have guildelines in place. I have sick leave from work. I have a great CI center that will see me that day. I have a doctor that I have his cell number If I need him. I can go with only one if I need to. I have batteries everywhere. I have four at home, two at school and two on my keyring. I have a recharger in my car, home, and school. I also have short term disability in place if I need to be off longer than I have sick leave(yes, it covers any CI problems).

We talk alot about CI problems for children. Children with HA problems too. My student forgets her at home some times. Students without batteries are a problems. And yes a child with a mild loss, without his communication device has a difficult time even if missing one day. Many do not have accommodations in place to assist. It is up to the teacher.
Click to expand...


Doesnt matter if the children is implanted or have HAs...by having BOTH signing and speech skills, the child is less likely to have problems at school if the HAs or CIs malfunctions.

That is the whole point of the argument. Why adhere to strictly oralism in the educational setting? Why put deaf children in an environment where they have to use their weakness sense to be able to learn? To me that is just endangering their learning process and I dont understand why take that risk with the oral only approach. My children's needs would come first not my own. If I had a deaf kid, I would most definitely try both approaches at the same time not one or the other.
 
shel90 said:
My dad...hahahaha! That would be like a dream so far out of reach. My mom finally realized after how much happier I have been since learning ASL and being involved in the Deaf culture, she should have learned a long time ago. She is trying to learn it but hard when I am 3,000 miles away. My brother tries to teach her but he is 31 years old and has his own life. My point was why didnt they or even my extended family learn for us when we were little especially I mean especially for my brother cuz that was his only source of communication? That is what Buffalo was referring and I was agreeing her. I see history repeating itself with many of the students and their parents. Even with children who have CIs. It is messed up.
Click to expand...

The reason I asked after reading, I asked my family the same question. I just wanted to know who would learn ASL if they wanted to communicate with me. The only person who said no was my dad and stepmom. There comment was "Isn't they why you got CIs?" So I can understand how you feel.

My step dad is in a wheelchair. He said I will learn but I can move my arms. He can only make the sign for I love you(not too well, but tries. He has been doing that for 20 years to me.)
 
shel90 said:
Doesnt matter if the children is implanted or have HAs...by having BOTH signing and speech skills, the child is less likely to have problems at school if the HAs or CIs malfunctions.

That is the whole point of the argument. Why adhere to strictly oralism in the educational setting? Why put deaf children in an environment where they have to use their weakness sense to be able to learn? To me that is just endangering their learning process and I dont understand why take that risk with the oral only approach. My children's needs would come first not my own. If I had a deaf kid, I would most definitely try both approaches at the same time not one or the other.
Click to expand...

Should children with a mild, moderate, sloping or anything be taught ASL or lipreading skills? Aren't most hearing loss progressive? It might not be progressive for years, but it does get worse.
 
shel90 said:
THE POINT IS...the MORE TOOLS the kid has THE MORE CHANCES for the kid to use different kinds of services.
Click to expand...

You know I do agree with this. I do think the more tools the better. I just think there are alot of tools and depends on the child and family. I lipread, I have always lipread, that is my tool. My HOH student lipreads, she does not like if I sign to her. I had a student with austism who loved to sign to me, it was his tool. We have to work with each child to get them comfortable with their strengths and show them other ways to communicate, so they can find their strenghts.
 
Cloggy said:
You might want to ask me, Rick, or any other parent and user of CI how often they have a malfunction that would make the person helpless...

You make it look as if such a failure is common. It is not.
So, before you start spreading nonsense about all sorts of malfunctions... have a look in the real world.....

As for Lotte, she has never had a malfunction with the CI's that stopped all communication and was any sort of problem...

Rick....
In all your experience of you daughter having CI.... how many times did she have a serious malfunction.?? (Hangovers not included.. :) )
Click to expand...
---

From Am J Otol. 1997 Nov;18(6 Suppl):S99-100: Electrode and device problems: manifestation and management.

A total of 119 children were implanted with the Nucleus 22 implant on the Nottingham program by March 1996. Twenty-five (i.e. 21%) of these had an electrophysiologically confirmed fault on at least 1 channel and 6 (i.e. 5%) had experienced total device failure. How these problems were first manifested and what the subsequent effects were on the child and family were determined by means of questionnaires and detailed examination of clinical notes. Our findings indicated that 76% of all internal device faults were initially detected in tuning or electrophysiological measurement. All parents expressed deep anxiety about the threat of device failure; cases of total failure occurring over a long period of time resulted in the greatest distress and effect on the family. Recommendations are made for companies to assist clinics in minimizing such effects.

---

From Br J Audiol, 2000 Oct;34(5):285-92: Audit of 5-year post-implantation routine integrity tests performed on paediatric cochlear implantees.

The Nottingham Paediatric Cochlear Implant Programme (NPCIP) specializes in the implantation of children under 5 years of age. Subsequent tuning of the device and identification of changes in device function for these young children, who may have additional disabilities, can often be challenging. Thus, an objective measure to assess the integrity of the device is desirable. This study compares the device function by both objective and behavioural techniques in 30 children (age at implantation 3-11 years) at five years post-implantation. All children were implanted with the Nucleus Mini 22 device. Objective data were collected from integrity testing (IT) which allowed examination of the functioning of the implant by measuring the electrical stimulus artefact. This does not require the child to give a behavioural response. A protocol for a five-year post-implantation IT is suggested which examines common ground, monopolar and bipolar modes of operation. Behavioural data in the form of threshold (T) and comfort (C) levels were obtained by use of developmental age-appropriate techniques at 5 years post-implantation. Results demonstrate that 43.3% of patients had no electrode faults, 23.3% had potential faults on both behavioural and integrity testing, 6.7% were difficult to assess in terms of defining electrode faults due to partial electrode insertions, 13.3% had potential faults on behavioural testing only and 13.3% of patients had potential faults on IT only. In conclusion, IT is valuable in the identification of faulty electrodes, especially in young children and those with additional disabilities. Implementation of the five-year routine IT affected the management of 30% of patients. This study demonstrates that objective and behavioural techniques are complementary procedures in the ongoing management of paediatric patients.

---

From Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2005 May;132(5):746-50: Reliability of cochlear implants.

BACKGROUND: The long-term reliability of cochlear implants over time is an important issue for patients and cochlear implant teams. The calculation of cumulative survival rates including all hard failures of cochlear implants is suitable to report objectively about cochlear implant reliability. METHODS: This is a report of 192 cochlear implants from different manufacturers in adults (n = 58) and children (n = 134). RESULTS: The overall cumulative implant survival rate was 91.7% for a period of 11 years. The main reasons for hard failures were design errors of the products and direct or indirect trauma to the cochlea implant site (especially in children) with consecutive breaks of the implant body or electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve our knowledge about reliability of cochlear implants more studies on cumulative long time survival of cochlear implants are needed, where functional failures and complications for whatever reason (design, mechanical, electronic, medical) are included. Cochlear implant reliability data should be considered during the choice of an implant for each individual patient.

---

From Otol Neurotol. 2005 Mar;26(2):183-7: Device nonuse among adult cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the causes and prevalence of previous and current device nonuse among adults who have received cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Adult tertiary referral center for cochlear implantation. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen consecutively implanted adult patients. The length of implant use ranged from 1 month to 14 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A period of 4 consecutive weeks of nonuse of cochlear implant, including both obligatory and elective nonuse. RESULTS: Twenty-nine adults (13.6% of implantees) were identified as having at some stage not used their device for a period of more than 4 consecutive weeks. The main reason was device failure (n = 11). Ten adults are current nonusers (4.7% of implantees). Reasons include surgical complication necessitating explantation (n = 3), comorbid illness (n = 3), elective nonuse (n = 2), audiologic complication (n = 1), and device failure (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of device nonuse was noted to increase slowly with time. The role of psychologic factors in contributing to the decision of an individual to elect to opt out of device use remains unproven.

---

Acta Otolaryngol. 2005 Mar;125(3):228-34: Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation in children and adults: a review of 342 cases in Vienna.

CONCLUSIONS: Our data represent the experience of the largest cochlear implant program in Austria. In conclusion, cochlear implantation is a safe procedure, associated with a low rate of intra- and postoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients should be informed about possible problems and especially about the risk of a reoperation due to device failure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cause of deafness, the intraoperative findings and the complication rate for all cochlear implant operations performed consecutively between 1994 and 2003 at Vienna General Hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Including all surgeries for bilateral implantation and revision, a series of 342 operations performed on 164 adults (age range 14.5-81 years; mean age 50.79 years) and 128 children (age range 0.75-14 years; mean age 5.00 years) was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The etiology of deafness was predominantly congenital or progressive (66.89%). The routine mastoidectomy approach was chosen in 300 patients (87.72%) and the suprameatal approach in 42 (12.28%). Intraoperatively, 4 children (2.53%) had a cerebrospinal fluid fistula and 35 patients (10.23%) showed cochlear ossification. Three adults (1.63%) and two children (1.27%) had facial nerves with an aberrant course. The overall complication rate was 12.2%, the rate of major complications was 4.97% and the rate of minor complications was 4.09%. There were no cases of either postoperative meningitis or facial nerve palsy. Both flap necrosis and electrode dislocation occurred in one adult patient (0.54%), but in none of the children. Formation of cholesteatoma was found in one adult (0.54%) and one child (0.63%). The rate of device failure was 7.07% for adults and 13.92% for children.

---

But mechanical problems are not the only worry parents for parents -

From Pediatrics, 2006 Feb;117(2):284-9: Bacterial meningitis among children with cochlear implants beyond 24 months after implantation

BACKGROUND: More than 11000 children in the United States with severe-to-profound hearing loss have cochlear implants. A 2002 investigation involving pediatric cochlear implant recipients identified meningitis episodes from January 1, 1997, through September 15, 2002. The incidence of pneumococcal meningitis in the cohort was 138.2 cases per 100000 person-years, >30 times higher than that for children in the general US population. Children with implants with positioners were at higher risk than children with other implant models. This higher risk of bacterial meningitis continued for up to 24 months after implantation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate additional reported cases to determine whether the increased rate of bacterial meningitis among children with cochlear implants extended beyond 24 months after implantation. METHODS: Our study population consisted of the cohort of children identified through the 2002 investigation; it included 4265 children who received cochlear implants in the United States between January 1, 1997, and August 6, 2002, and who were <6 years of age at the time of implantation. We calculated updated incidence rates and incidence according to time since implantation. RESULTS: We identified 12 new episodes of meningitis for 12 children. Eleven of the children had implants with positioners; 2 children died. Six episodes occurred >24 months after implantation. When cases identified in the 2002 and 2004 investigations were combined, the incidence rate of > or =24-months postimplantation bacterial meningitis among children with positioners was 450 cases per 100000 person-years, compared with no cases among children without positioners. CONCLUSIONS: Our updated findings support continued monitoring and prompt treatment of bacterial infections by health care providers and parents of children with cochlear implants. This vigilance remains important beyond 2 years after implantation, particularly among children with positioners. The vaccination recommendations for all children with implants, with and without positioners, and all potential recipients of implants continue to apply.
 
flip said:
Why does oralists keep on ignoring questions? I see the bi-bi people here replying questions all the time. It's hard to understand oralists when they don't reply.
Click to expand...

Good point, Flip. Not replying is rude IMO.
 
Kaitin said:
---

From Am J Otol. 1997 Nov;18(6 Suppl):S99-100: Electrode and device problems: manifestation and management.

A total of 119 children were implanted with the Nucleus 22 implant on the Nottingham program by March 1996. Twenty-five (i.e. 21%) of these had an electrophysiologically confirmed fault on at least 1 channel and 6 (i.e. 5%) had experienced total device failure. How these problems were first manifested and what the subsequent effects were on the child and family were determined by means of questionnaires and detailed examination of clinical notes. Our findings indicated that 76% of all internal device faults were initially detected in tuning or electrophysiological measurement. All parents expressed deep anxiety about the threat of device failure; cases of total failure occurring over a long period of time resulted in the greatest distress and effect on the family. Recommendations are made for companies to assist clinics in minimizing such effects.


I use Advanced Bionics, if you use anythingother than Neulus than that study is not going to help. but good research
---

From Br J Audiol, 2000 Oct;34(5):285-92: Audit of 5-year post-implantation routine integrity tests performed on paediatric cochlear implantees.

The Nottingham Paediatric Cochlear Implant Programme (NPCIP) specializes in the implantation of children under 5 years of age. Subsequent tuning of the device and identification of changes in device function for these young children, who may have additional disabilities, can often be challenging. Thus, an objective measure to assess the integrity of the device is desirable. This study compares the device function by both objective and behavioural techniques in 30 children (age at implantation 3-11 years) at five years post-implantation. All children were implanted with the Nucleus Mini 22 device. Objective data were collected from integrity testing (IT) which allowed examination of the functioning of the implant by measuring the electrical stimulus artefact. This does not require the child to give a behavioural response. A protocol for a five-year post-implantation IT is suggested which examines common ground, monopolar and bipolar modes of operation. Behavioural data in the form of threshold (T) and comfort (C) levels were obtained by use of developmental age-appropriate techniques at 5 years post-implantation. Results demonstrate that 43.3% of patients had no electrode faults, 23.3% had potential faults on both behavioural and integrity testing, 6.7% were difficult to assess in terms of defining electrode faults due to partial electrode insertions, 13.3% had potential faults on behavioural testing only and 13.3% of patients had potential faults on IT only. In conclusion, IT is valuable in the identification of faulty electrodes, especially in young children and those with additional disabilities. Implementation of the five-year routine IT affected the management of 30% of patients. This study demonstrates that objective and behavioural techniques are complementary procedures in the ongoing management of paediatric patients.

---

From Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2005 May;132(5):746-50: Reliability of cochlear implants.

BACKGROUND: The long-term reliability of cochlear implants over time is an important issue for patients and cochlear implant teams. The calculation of cumulative survival rates including all hard failures of cochlear implants is suitable to report objectively about cochlear implant reliability. METHODS: This is a report of 192 cochlear implants from different manufacturers in adults (n = 58) and children (n = 134). RESULTS: The overall cumulative implant survival rate was 91.7% for a period of 11 years. The main reasons for hard failures were design errors of the products and direct or indirect trauma to the cochlea implant site (especially in children) with consecutive breaks of the implant body or electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve our knowledge about reliability of cochlear implants more studies on cumulative long time survival of cochlear implants are needed, where functional failures and complications for whatever reason (design, mechanical, electronic, medical) are included. Cochlear implant reliability data should be considered during the choice of an implant for each individual patient.

Good percent for me
---

From Otol Neurotol. 2005 Mar;26(2):183-7: Device nonuse among adult cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the causes and prevalence of previous and current device nonuse among adults who have received cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Adult tertiary referral center for cochlear implantation. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen consecutively implanted adult patients. The length of implant use ranged from 1 month to 14 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A period of 4 consecutive weeks of nonuse of cochlear implant, including both obligatory and elective nonuse. RESULTS: Twenty-nine adults (13.6% of implantees) were identified as having at some stage not used their device for a period of more than 4 consecutive weeks. The main reason was device failure (n = 11). Ten adults are current nonusers (4.7% of implantees). Reasons include surgical complication necessitating explantation (n = 3), comorbid illness (n = 3), elective nonuse (n = 2), audiologic complication (n = 1), and device failure (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of device nonuse was noted to increase slowly with time. The role of psychologic factors in contributing to the decision of an individual to elect to opt out of device use remains unproven.


It said adults. I wish they put age. Many older adults are getting implants. and it discuss only 13% of adults.
---

Acta Otolaryngol. 2005 Mar;125(3):228-34: Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation in children and adults: a review of 342 cases in Vienna.

CONCLUSIONS: Our data represent the experience of the largest cochlear implant program in Austria. In conclusion, cochlear implantation is a safe procedure, associated with a low rate of intra- and postoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients should be informed about possible problems and especially about the risk of a reoperation due to device failure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cause of deafness, the intraoperative findings and the complication rate for all cochlear implant operations performed consecutively between 1994 and 2003 at Vienna General Hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Including all surgeries for bilateral implantation and revision, a series of 342 operations performed on 164 adults (age range 14.5-81 years; mean age 50.79 years) and 128 children (age range 0.75-14 years; mean age 5.00 years) was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The etiology of deafness was predominantly congenital or progressive (66.89%). The routine mastoidectomy approach was chosen in 300 patients (87.72%) and the suprameatal approach in 42 (12.28%). Intraoperatively, 4 children (2.53%) had a cerebrospinal fluid fistula and 35 patients (10.23%) showed cochlear ossification. Three adults (1.63%) and two children (1.27%) had facial nerves with an aberrant course. The overall complication rate was 12.2%, the rate of major complications was 4.97% and the rate of minor complications was 4.09%. There were no cases of either postoperative meningitis or facial nerve palsy. Both flap necrosis and electrode dislocation occurred in one adult patient (0.54%), but in none of the children. Formation of cholesteatoma was found in one adult (0.54%) and one child (0.63%). The rate of device failure was 7.07% for adults and 13.92% for children.

That was great research. I was informed on these problems that could happen with surgery.
---

But mechanical problems are not the only worry parents for parents -

From Pediatrics, 2006 Feb;117(2):284-9: Bacterial meningitis among children with cochlear implants beyond 24 months after implantation

BACKGROUND: More than 11000 children in the United States with severe-to-profound hearing loss have cochlear implants. A 2002 investigation involving pediatric cochlear implant recipients identified meningitis episodes from January 1, 1997, through September 15, 2002. The incidence of pneumococcal meningitis in the cohort was 138.2 cases per 100000 person-years, >30 times higher than that for children in the general US population. Children with implants with positioners were at higher risk than children with other implant models. This higher risk of bacterial meningitis continued for up to 24 months after implantation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate additional reported cases to determine whether the increased rate of bacterial meningitis among children with cochlear implants extended beyond 24 months after implantation. METHODS: Our study population consisted of the cohort of children identified through the 2002 investigation; it included 4265 children who received cochlear implants in the United States between January 1, 1997, and August 6, 2002, and who were <6 years of age at the time of implantation. We calculated updated incidence rates and incidence according to time since implantation. RESULTS: We identified 12 new episodes of meningitis for 12 children. Eleven of the children had implants with positioners; 2 children died. Six episodes occurred >24 months after implantation. When cases identified in the 2002 and 2004 investigations were combined, the incidence rate of > or =24-months postimplantation bacterial meningitis among children with positioners was 450 cases per 100000 person-years, compared with no cases among children without positioners. CONCLUSIONS: Our updated findings support continued monitoring and prompt treatment of bacterial infections by health care providers and parents of children with cochlear implants. This vigilance remains important beyond 2 years after implantation, particularly among children with positioners. The vaccination recommendations for all children with implants, with and without positioners, and all potential recipients of implants continue to apply.
Click to expand...
We have to have a vaccine. the implant company will pay for that. So they are trying to address this issue. I see research like this as one of the reasons, CI companies and dr have made changes. So I see this as positive. I would like to see the update on this.

As always Kaitlyn, good job with research. When you research do you also look for research that does not support your views or contradite the topic?
 
Cloggy said:
Such a misinterpretation.... but that's your MO.. willingly misinterpretating other posts..
I'm not comparing hangover and CI-misfunction. I am saying that missing a week due to illness is happening as well.... how do students cope with that?

You might want to ask me, Rick, or any other parent and user of CI how often they have a malfunction that would make the person helpless...

You make it look as if such a failure is common. It is not.
So, before you start spreading nonsense about all sorts of malfunctions... have a look in the real world.....

As for Lotte, she has never had a malfunction with the CI's that stopped all communication and was any sort of problem...

Rick....
In all your experience of you daughter having CI.... how many times did she have a serious malfunction.?? (Hangovers not included.. :) )
Click to expand...

An illness does not impede communication. Can't compare it with CI malfuction. If you wish to hear about parents who share experiences with CI malfunction, I owuld suggest you consult the thread reagarding negative aspects in this forum. There is a link to an article in Hands and Voices that relates these experiences.

It's great that Lotte has not had a malfunction. Glad to hear it. However, I Rick recently admitted that his daughter had to be reimplanted due to malfunction. Post # 749 in this thread.
 
Cheri said:
Interpreters do sometimes show up late, I'll say 15 minutes late, but they always call to informed the parties in advance. If an interpreter is a no show, It wasn't the interpreter's fault. I'm deaf and you're not Rick, You don't even know how the system works.



If it did happened to her son, it wasn't the fault of the interpreters, it's the fault of the school. the school should always have at least 3 or 4 hired interpreters.

Deaf people are entitled to an interpreter at all appointments, even all interpreters would say that because they know the ADA Law. They know it is important to meet the needs of the deaf.

I found this article which you should read.

Kim Lamb • LVN photo Joy Bergreen-Steiger is one of three sign-language interpreters employed by the Churchill County School District.
"We have to have more classes so we can give equal access to these kids," Frank said. "We cannot continue to send kids to school without any language at all."
Interpreter, education help local deaf student succeed
Click to expand...

Although rick id not say so, that was a quote from one of my posts, cheri, and you are so right. It was not a case of terp not showing up, but of the school not providing one.
 
deafskeptic said:
When you wrote that, I wondered if his writing is above average or below average compared to his hearing peers. I have no way of knowing that from your comment.

I think Jackie overreacted to your comment. The other readers have no way of knowing if you think his writing is above average or below average.

In short, your comment was a neutral one.
Click to expand...

Thank you deafskeptic. Jackie has attempted to create negativity where none existed. But her overly defensive reaction is quite tellling.
 
vallee said:
Fuzzy's ban was over on November 18th, She has made a choice NOT to come back. I know since I e-mail her outside of this forum.
Click to expand...

Good choice. And since you email her outside of this forum, I might suggest it is not conversation with her that you miss, but the behavior for which she was banned that you miss.
 
vallee said:
After reading all this stuff about CI failure, I thought it was more common than it really is. As for my CIs I can't get up every morning worried that my CIs will fail. If they do, I have guildelines in place. I have sick leave from work. I have a great CI center that will see me that day. I have a doctor that I have his cell number If I need him. I can go with only one if I need to. I have batteries everywhere. I have four at home, two at school and two on my keyring. I have a recharger in my car, home, and school. I also have short term disability in place if I need to be off longer than I have sick leave(yes, it covers any CI problems).

We talk alot about CI problems for children. Children with HA problems too. My student forgets her at home some times. Students without batteries are a problems. And yes a child with a mild loss, without his communication device has a difficult time even if missing one day. Many do not have accommodations in place to assist. It is up to the teacher.
Click to expand...

Accommodations are not up to the teacher. They are up to the IEP team. If you carry extra batteries, what makes you think that HA users don't carry extra batteries? My son's teachers always had access to extra batteries, and he also always carried extra batteries in his back pack. We are not discussing the fact that batteries go dead. That is not CI failure. We are discussing failure of the devise itself, and what happens for the child that has no other form of communciation available to them. And, yes, HA children have batteries that go dead, or HAs that break. However, if that child also has sign available, the broken or malfunctioning technology is not a crisis. The child still has communication. That is one of the most valid points against an oral only environment, and one of the most convincing arguments for insuring that every deaf child have access to both sign and speech. And I might add, a broken HA does not require additional surgery for repair.
 
vallee said:
You know I do agree with this. I do think the more tools the better. I just think there are alot of tools and depends on the child and family. I lipread, I have always lipread, that is my tool. My HOH student lipreads, she does not like if I sign to her. I had a student with austism who loved to sign to me, it was his tool. We have to work with each child to get them comfortable with their strengths and show them other ways to communicate, so they can find their strenghts.
Click to expand...

Here is something to consider. If you need to speak to a hearing child from across the room, you can raise the volume of your voice. If you need to speak to a signing child from across the room, you have no problem doing that. However, if you need to speak to the deaf child who is relying on lipreading from across the room, you are up a creek.

Lipreading under the best of circumstances is loaded with ambiguity and creates much misunderstanding. In a classroom, lipreading is by far, the least effective way for a student to gain the information available in the classroom, and most especially in a mainstream classroom. Lipreading is most effective when the conversation is one on one, the distance between the two parties is 5' or less, and the lighting is ideal, with a minimum of visual distraction. This hardly describes a classroom environment.
 
Back
Top