Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users

jackiesolorzano said:
Vallee now you disagree with Jillo, she's not going to like you any more.
Click to expand...

Jackie, stop acting like such a child. I haven't heard comments like that since I was in grammar school.
 
shel90 said:
Cuz before Jillo made that post, you kept bringing up your son's reading and writing levels and she was just responding that yea, she has seen examples of his writing. That was all. I went back to read it to see if I missed anything negative she said and I realized that she was just responding to your posts regarding your son.
Click to expand...

Thank you, shel.:ty: Everyone but jackie seems to realize that. She is intent, however, on trying to stir the pot.
 
shel90 said:
You had the luxury of either you and your husband being available to take care of the problem. Unfortunately, many families dont have that luxury and as a result, the child is stuck in an environment where communication is practically impossible. At least by being in a signing environment, our students have no worries if their CIs malfunction or breaks down. No time in the educational setting is ever lost simply because of inability to communicate. There is another reason why I strongly believe in the BiBi approach or using both approaches for all deaf/hoh children.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Yes that is exactly what she does. I have always said that you can find research to validate almost every point.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with debate. If you can find research to validate your points, why is it that you don't post it instead of resorting to childish tactics of rebuttal?
 
rick48 said:
Really, a "total misrepresentation"? But yet it was YOU who wrote "If his interpreter was sick and didn't show up, he lost a day of classroom instruction."

For someone who is always lauding over us her "professional" writing skills and commenting upon the writing skills of others such as Jackie's son, that seems an odd way to write that the district failed to provide your son with an interpreter at all.

In reality, who cares, for in my opinion I think you just make it up as you go along and post whatever you think best suits your particular argument du jour.
Click to expand...

And, that was not the terp's fault, but the school system's. And it is also exactly why I placed him in an eductional evironment where complete communication was available 100% of the time.

Your opinion means less than nothing to me, Rick.
 
deafdyke said:
we're not sign seperatists.............we are pro FULL TOOLBOX!
Click to expand...

I am pro full toolbox also - I like this, DeafDyke!

Interesting studies -

From Child: Care, Health and Development, Volume 28 Issue 5 Page 403-418, September 2002 : A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants

The aim of the study was to explore patterns of communication between 22 children with cochlear implants (CI) and their parents, teachers and peers in natural interactions over a 2-year period. The children, between 2 and 5 years old when implanted, had used the implant between 1 and 3.5 years at the end of the study. Analyses of videorecorded interactions showed that meaningful oral communication was more easily obtained in the home setting than in the preschool setting. Patterns of communication between parent–child, content and complexity of dialogues, quality of peer interactions, communicative styles of adults, and the use of sign language in communication turned out to be important factors when explaining the result of the CI on the individual child's development. The children with the best oral skills were also good signers.

---

From Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.38 327-337 April 1995: Acquisition of Speech by Children Who Have Prolonged Cochlear Implant Experience

The four purposes of this investigation were to assess whether children acquire intelligible speech following prolonged cochlear-implant experience and examine their speech error patterns, to examine how age at implantation influences speech acquisition, to assess how speech production and speech perception skills relate, and to determine whether cochlear implant recipients who formerly used simultaneous communication (speech and manually coded English) begin to use speech without sign to communicate. Twenty-eight prelinguistically deafened children who use a Nucleus cochlear implant were assigned to one of three age groups, according to age at implantation: 2–5 yrs (N= 12), 5–8 yrs (N= 9), and 8–15 yrs (N= 7). All subjects had worn a cochlear implant for at least 24 mos, and an average of 36 mos. All subjects used simultaneous communication at the time of implantation. Subjects performed both imitative and structured spontaneous sampling speech tasks. The results permit the following conclusions: (a) children who have used a cochlear implant for at least 2 yrs acquire some intelligible speech; (b) children who receive a cochlear implant before the age of 5 yrs appear to show greater benefit in their speech production skills than children who are older, at least after a minimum of 2 yrs of use; (c) children who recognize more speech while wearing their cochlear implants are likely to speak more intelligibly; and, (d) signing does not disappear from a child's communication mode following implantation.

---

From Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Volume 16 Issue 4 Page 222-229, November 2001: How Do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read?

Reading requires two related, but separable, capabilities: (1) familiarity with a language, and (2) understanding the mapping between that language and the printed word (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Children who are profoundly deaf are disadvantaged on both counts. Not surprisingly, then, reading is difficult for profoundly deaf children. But some deaf children do manage to read fluently. How? Are they simply the smartest of the crop, or do they have some strategy, or circumstance, that facilitates linking the written code with language? A priori one might guess that knowing American Sign Language (ASL) would interfere with learning to read English simply because ASL does not map in any systematic way onto English. However, recent research has suggested that individuals with good signing skills are not worse, and may even be better, readers than individuals with poor signing skills (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000). Thus, knowing a language (even if it is not the language captured in print) appears to facilitate learning to read. Nonetheless, skill in signing does not guarantee skill in reading—reading must be taught. The next frontier for reading research in deaf education is to understand how deaf readers map their knowledge of sign language onto print, and how instruction can best be used to turn signers into readers.

---

From American Annals of the Deaf - Volume 150, Number 3, Summer 2005, pp. 260-267: Interviews With Deaf Children About Their Experiences Using Cochlear Implants

Within the framework of a longitudinal study of deaf children with cochlear implants, 11 children with implants were interviewed. The objective was to shed light on what it is like for a child to use a cochlear implant, based on these children's own experience with implants, which ranged from 5.0 to 7.5 years. Six of the children were in schools for the deaf, five in regular classes. All but one used an implant daily. The children appreciated that an implant enabled them to perceive sounds in the environment. Some of the children in regular classes could take part in one-to-one conversations with teachers but had difficulty following teaching and discussions. This observation was consistent with what the children's parents and teachers had maintained. Peer interaction was said to be best when other children had the use of at least some signs. According to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, 1959), issues concerning children should be dealt with from the child's own perspective. But young children are seldom asked...

So probably sign should be a tool in most people's toolbox, CI or not.
 
Kaitin said:
I am pro full toolbox also - I like this, DeafDyke!

Interesting studies -

From Child: Care, Health and Development, Volume 28 Issue 5 Page 403-418, September 2002 : A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants

The aim of the study was to explore patterns of communication between 22 children with cochlear implants (CI) and their parents, teachers and peers in natural interactions over a 2-year period. The children, between 2 and 5 years old when implanted, had used the implant between 1 and 3.5 years at the end of the study. Analyses of videorecorded interactions showed that meaningful oral communication was more easily obtained in the home setting than in the preschool setting. Patterns of communication between parent–child, content and complexity of dialogues, quality of peer interactions, communicative styles of adults, and the use of sign language in communication turned out to be important factors when explaining the result of the CI on the individual child's development. The children with the best oral skills were also good signers.

---

From Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.38 327-337 April 1995: Acquisition of Speech by Children Who Have Prolonged Cochlear Implant Experience

The four purposes of this investigation were to assess whether children acquire intelligible speech following prolonged cochlear-implant experience and examine their speech error patterns, to examine how age at implantation influences speech acquisition, to assess how speech production and speech perception skills relate, and to determine whether cochlear implant recipients who formerly used simultaneous communication (speech and manually coded English) begin to use speech without sign to communicate. Twenty-eight prelinguistically deafened children who use a Nucleus cochlear implant were assigned to one of three age groups, according to age at implantation: 2–5 yrs (N= 12), 5–8 yrs (N= 9), and 8–15 yrs (N= 7). All subjects had worn a cochlear implant for at least 24 mos, and an average of 36 mos. All subjects used simultaneous communication at the time of implantation. Subjects performed both imitative and structured spontaneous sampling speech tasks. The results permit the following conclusions: (a) children who have used a cochlear implant for at least 2 yrs acquire some intelligible speech; (b) children who receive a cochlear implant before the age of 5 yrs appear to show greater benefit in their speech production skills than children who are older, at least after a minimum of 2 yrs of use; (c) children who recognize more speech while wearing their cochlear implants are likely to speak more intelligibly; and, (d) signing does not disappear from a child's communication mode following implantation.

---

From Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Volume 16 Issue 4 Page 222-229, November 2001: How Do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read?

Reading requires two related, but separable, capabilities: (1) familiarity with a language, and (2) understanding the mapping between that language and the printed word (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Children who are profoundly deaf are disadvantaged on both counts. Not surprisingly, then, reading is difficult for profoundly deaf children. But some deaf children do manage to read fluently. How? Are they simply the smartest of the crop, or do they have some strategy, or circumstance, that facilitates linking the written code with language? A priori one might guess that knowing American Sign Language (ASL) would interfere with learning to read English simply because ASL does not map in any systematic way onto English. However, recent research has suggested that individuals with good signing skills are not worse, and may even be better, readers than individuals with poor signing skills (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000). Thus, knowing a language (even if it is not the language captured in print) appears to facilitate learning to read. Nonetheless, skill in signing does not guarantee skill in reading—reading must be taught. The next frontier for reading research in deaf education is to understand how deaf readers map their knowledge of sign language onto print, and how instruction can best be used to turn signers into readers.

---

From American Annals of the Deaf - Volume 150, Number 3, Summer 2005, pp. 260-267: Interviews With Deaf Children About Their Experiences Using Cochlear Implants

Within the framework of a longitudinal study of deaf children with cochlear implants, 11 children with implants were interviewed. The objective was to shed light on what it is like for a child to use a cochlear implant, based on these children's own experience with implants, which ranged from 5.0 to 7.5 years. Six of the children were in schools for the deaf, five in regular classes. All but one used an implant daily. The children appreciated that an implant enabled them to perceive sounds in the environment. Some of the children in regular classes could take part in one-to-one conversations with teachers but had difficulty following teaching and discussions. This observation was consistent with what the children's parents and teachers had maintained. Peer interaction was said to be best when other children had the use of at least some signs. According to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, 1959), issues concerning children should be dealt with from the child's own perspective. But young children are seldom asked...

So probably sign should be a tool in most people's toolbox, CI or not.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more. And the preponderance of the research reaches the same conclusion.
 
jillio said:
When one is involved in a debate, one does not find support for the opposing side. That is the opposing side's job. That is not bias, and it was not involved inthe actual research process. It is simply finding eveidence to support one's side. Bias in research is quite a different situation altogether.
Click to expand...

Kaitlin and I answered each other. It was a comment on how does she find her research. We both understand each other and I do respect Kaitlin's research skils.

Bias in research can also cause a problem.
 
deafdyke said:
jackie, c-print or cart.....same difference. they are essentially the same thing, except that with cprint you get a hard copy. second of all, kids who utilize 'terps through an iep, will and do have backup plans in case the 'terp doesn't show up for class. there are 'terp agencies........seriously, your daughter is in the same sittuion as someone who uses a 'terp. why don't you understand that? she is dependant on cart, just like someone who uses a 'terp.
vallee, i think the gross majority of dhh kids should have access to a full toolbox. HOH kids haven't really had amazing acheivement levels. that's prolly b/c historically they were pushed towards the hearing world, and focused exclusively on speech and listening.

well, if a ci gave a kid perfect hearing, there'd be no need for asl.....but the thing is, that kids with ci are functionally hoh. they still miss a lot of spoken stuff. especially since not everyone in the world speaks with a 'professional public speaker' voice. Most hearing people when they talk to dhh folks, tend to subconsciously modify their speech patterns to make it easier for dhh folks to understand. i remember when i would return to camp and collegel from extended absenses, i would always have to 'reteach' everyone how to speak to me. however not everyone does that. there are still TONS of people out there with soft voices or really hard to understand accents.
i remember in high school i had a teacher with a very soft voice. even my parents couldn't hear her. yet the school blamed ME for not understanding. If I'd had the abilty to use a 'terp then that situion would not have happened.
hell, my best friend is extremely isolated b/c hardly anyone can understand her b/c although she can talk, her speech is extremely extremely hard to understand.
why is it so fucking hard for the oralists in this thread to understand that we're not sign seperatists.............we are pro FULL TOOLBOX!
Click to expand...

I know...they keep saying we are against teaching deaf kids oral skills and many times we tell them that we are not. We are against denying children a visual language along with the spoken language. Nothing difficult to understand, in my opinion.
 
wow, Kaitin reseach many wonderful and positive links... I am glad to have her around here.. :thumb:
 
Angel said:
hmm, how do you really know that the interpreters does not notify the agency that they can not make it, have you ever worked as an interpreter? and how many times have you had an interpreter?..


When my first son was in kindergarden, I found out he was in the school play, I was so excite and wanted to hear him sing but I couldn't so I thought about getting an interpreter so someone could sign the songs that my son was going to sing in the play, I asked the school if they could provide me an interpreter so I could enjoy my son's in his play, at first they said no, and I asked why, she said because I wasn't a deaf student just a parent, so I asked to speak with the principal but she wasn't available at that time so I decide to set up an appointment to meet with her which I did, the next following day, I went to the office, met the principal, and sat inside her office, we talked for an hour, I explained to her about my deafness and what it is like not being able to enjoy my son's singing, not knowing the words in the song etc, she said that there no way they could provide me an interpreter because I was the ONLY deaf parent at my son's school. I understood where she was coming from on this, so I left the office, a couple of weeks later I went to see my son's in his play, I sat there watching him singing, smiling, then he went up to the microphone and said something, I watch the other parents and children laughing,smiling and clapping, I felt so sad inside because I have no clue what my son said, or what words in the song he sang or the name of the music etc. so I decide to do something about this, I fought with the school for 3 years to provide interpreter in music or school play, for those who can enjoy it as well along with the hearing parents too, I'm his mother and I have this right to feel part of my son's school program. finally after 3 years the school board decide to provide interpreters for the deaf parents, for meetings, school plays, music concerts, awards and many more...After my second son enroll in the same school as my first son did, there was more deaf parents at the music concerts, and they told me they were so happy to see an interpreter up on the stage, she said she couldn't believe that the school would provide this service for the deaf parents, It made me feel good inside knowing I did not give up, and I also made those other deaf parents enjoy their children's play as well too...So what I'm saying here, if a parent or a deaf child need an interpreter whether or not they may be the only one, fight don't give up!
Click to expand...

I am surprised after read your post which total different here in Germany. I can order interpreter from Agency whatever I like. Agency pays. Yes, the children songs at Kindergarden and school or meeting. I was notifed few weeks before annonncement and then apply an Interpreter (I pick which interpreter, I trust to) at Agency. Agency do everything for me and also pay for me. The interpreter only comes if I require.
 
shel90 said:
I was shocked that for the first time, there was no interpreter available to interpret a meeting at my work. The word is that the terps are getting jobs working as VRS (Video Relay Interpretors) cuz the pay is much better.

I just have never known of a situation in my experience of a terp not showing up for a job for no reason. Even with a reason, it is pretty rare as far as I know and I have used terps in many different states.


U say range from ASL to CIs..it seems like there is this idea that because a child gets a CI, there is no need for ASL? I believe in using the ASL approach for both CI and non-CI users. I dont see as much harm in it as there is with using a strictly oral-only approach.
Click to expand...

I would never say ASL only or oral only. I believe it is up to families to decide what works best with their child as the child developes. I was the one who insisted back in 1991 after reading an article in the Down Syndrom news on a study that showed using signs with kids who had speech delays helped lessen the frustration the child experienced, I found while we didn't use alot of signs it did help with non complient behaviors if (and even now when) she doesn't understand the verbal words. I even had to put up with a lecture from her ST about how she needed to speak so the signs shouldn't be used. Both can be used but the families are the ones who need to evaluate how the child is doing and go from there. Not every deaf/hoh child, or any child for that matter, requires a cookie cutter approach.
 
vallee said:
Kaitlin and I answered each other. It was a comment on how does she find her research. We both understand each other and I do respect Kaitlin's research skils.

Bias in research can also cause a problem.
Click to expand...

Bias in research is a situation that I have pointed out as problematic in numeous posts. In fact, it is something that Kaitlin and I discussed at length recently. Having been directly involved with research to the degree that I was selected to present a research project of my own to a national convention in Chicago in May of this year, I am well aware of bias in research, and keep possible bias in mind in each and every research article I read.
 
vallee said:
When taken out of a posting it is difficult to know what I said. So at another time I will weed through the posting to find it and response.
Click to expand...

My post # 779, regarding the circumstances most conducive to effective lifreading, and accommodations through the IEP, and your response, post # 820.
 
shel90 said:
I know...they keep saying we are against teaching deaf kids oral skills and many times we tell them that we are not. We are against denying children a visual language along with the spoken language. Nothing difficult to understand, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not difficult to understand at all.....our position is very straightforward, and has been stated many, many times. But there are those weho are still trying to portray me as having raised my son in an ASL environment only, even though I have clarified any number of times that he was raised in a bicultural/bilingual environment and educated in a TC environment, and that he does have oral skills that he uses to interact with the hearing when he needs to. I guess because I stated that he prefered ASL for communication and used a terp in college classes some are reading that as ASL only. Either that, or they are purposely twisting to try and provide an innacurrate picture.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...



That's exactly how it was for me regarding lipreading. How does a deaf child get a good quality education through a mode of communication like that?
 
Back
Top