Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users

[jillio]

jillio - I am quite sure that people on this board are capable of searching, if they so choose.

So much for diseminating accurate information.

 

[loml]

SLP environment?

That teacher told me that many of the families that she has worked with at her old job werent consident in using CS with their children. They would end up just going back to using spoken language and leaving the child out so CS like ASL is not being used fully in many homes.

shel90- That indeed is a very sad.

 

[shel90]

Probably those whose delays are not as severe?

maybe...I just need to clarify with her to double check.

 

[jillio]

I will have to talk to that teacher again for more clarification..maybe tmw and ask her if she meant to use CS for those who are delayed in language or those who are proficient in language. She has had CS training and experienced using it at her old job. One aide who supports it grew up using it when learning reading and writing. I will have to ask her more about it too. She is fluent in ASL and has no oral skills whatsover.

I'll be interested in hearing what they both have to say!

 

[loml]

SLP environment?

That teacher told me that many of the families that she has worked with at her old job werent consident in using CS with their children. They would end up just going back to using spoken language and leaving the child out so CS like ASL is not being used fully in many homes.

shel90- That indeed is a very sad.

SLP is speech, language and pathology.

 

[jillio]

shel90- That indeed is a very sad.

SLP is speech, language and pathology.

There it is.

 

[shel90]

I'll be interested in hearing what they both have to say!

Yea, I meant to ask them more but I get busy with my lessons and other things so I forget. I never get a break at work..maybe 5 mins at the most. We work thru lunch cuz we have lunch duty with the students.

 

[loml]

Loml - so no ASL and 100% English with CS? Or do you mean learn ASL after English?

Kaitin - In a hearing family with a deaf child, yes I would say 100 % English via CS. If the family can provide access to a native ASL user then the child should be provided both.

 

[jillio]

Yea, I meant to ask them more but I get busy with my lessons and other things so I forget. I never get a break at work..maybe 5 mins at the most. We work thru lunch cuz we have lunch duty with the students.

I understand! I have 2 nephews who teach....one grammar school and one jr. high. The one that teaches jr. high also volunteered to give up his planning period to teach a literature class so he never has anytime during the day!

 

[loml]

early intervention as in babies? I dont know about u but I prefer just use ASL and spoken English and use CS for those who are language delayed in the educational setting to help them with reading/writing. That is what that teacher told me about how CS should be used.

shel90- CS has many applications in the special education enviroment.

 

[jillio]

shel90- CS has many applications in the special education enviroment.

And,there it is again.

 

[deafdyke]

Does this tool box include Cued Speech?

Yes, of course. It's very hard to tell whether or not a tool is going to be useful. That's why I'm against oral only mentality......they push the myth that oral skills are the only ones needed, and that if you hear and talk, you don't "need" anything else.

 

[Angel]

She is enjoying her life, shopping and painting. I won't read her mind. We discuss other things like our family and holiday season.

That's good, glad to hear she's doing ok.

 

[Kaitin]

shel90- That indeed is a very sad.

SLP is speech, language and pathology.

Is SLP another word for ST? I used "SLP "speech language pathology" definition" in Google and it seems the same but I am not sure.

 

[jillio]

Kaitin - In a hearing family with a deaf child, yes I would say 100 % English via CS. If the family can provide access to a native ASL user then the child should be provided both.

Kaitlin, aren't you a deaf person from a hearing family? ASL seems to have served you very well in developing language and critical thinking skills.

 

[fredfam1]

Kaitin - In a hearing family with a deaf child, yes I would say 100 % English via CS. If the family can provide access to a native ASL user then the child should be provided both.

I taught my hearing children ASL from birth at the same time as
using speech. My personal observations were they all benefited
by the use of two languages at the same time. Their over all
language learning experience was enhanced. So training a family
to provide only 100% English makes no sense. You are asking
a child to understand and use a device that requires training
of the brain to processes sounds in a way that is mechanical
and really foreign to the brain. Which will delay windows of
learning opportunities. If sign is used simultaneously with English
it seems to me that all of the learning will be enhanced. The day
of birth is when language aquisition needs to begin. Not while we
wait for the appropriate time of implantation of some mechanical
device. Windows of Learning opportunities are only open for a
short time and then the brain closes them. Never to open again.
The brain can compensate, but why put that burden on the child.
ASL from day 1 and add whatever later. That will make all methods
more likely to succeed.

 

[rick48]

I taught my hearing children ASL from birth at the same time as
using speech. My personal observations were they all benefited
by the use of two languages at the same time. Their over all
language learning experience was enhanced. So training a family
to provide only 100% English makes no sense. You are asking
a child to understand and use a device that requires training
of the brain to processes sounds in a way that is mechanical
and really foreign to the brain. Which will delay windows of
learning opportunities. If sign is used simultaneously with English
it seems to me that all of the learning will be enhanced. The day
of birth is when language aquisition needs to begin. Not while we
wait for the appropriate time of implantation of some mechanical
device. Windows of Learning opportunities are only open for a
short time and then the brain closes them. Never to open again.
The brain can compensate, but why put that burden on the child.
ASL from day 1 and add whatever later. That will make all methods
more likely to succeed.

As a parent of both a hearing and a deaf child there is a vast difference between the two and how they acquire spoken language so to use your hearing children as an example of how deaf children should be taught language is not a valid example. In fact, it is inconsistent with what you later state for although you taught your hearing children two languages simultaneously you go on to state that deaf children should be taught ASL "from day 1 and add whatever later." I guess you do not think deaf children are as capable as hearing children. How then do you explain Cloggy's daughter who is at the very least tri-lingual?

While many deaf children can benefit from being taught sign and oral language simultaneously, there are some deaf children who gravitate towards and grasp oral language more than others. That many children who are implanted early are able to acquire spoken language at rates comparable to their hearing peers disproves your statement that it delays the "windows of learning opportunities". In fact, studies have consistently shown the correlation between the closer implantation is to the onset of deafness and acquistion of oral language. That you choose to refer to cochlear implants and HAs as "some mechanical device" evidences the fact that you do not understand how they can assist the child's development of a spoken language.

Each child is different and no one approach works the same for all. To say that a particular method "makes no sense" when there are many children who have benefited from the method is truly what "makes no sense". What "makes sense" is for parents to be open to all methods and to utilize those, or in some instances, that method, which are/is best for their particular child.

 

[Kaitin]

Kaitlin, aren't you a deaf person from a hearing family? ASL seems to have served you very well in developing language and critical thinking skills.

My mom is a English professor and loves language. She speaks several with English and now is learning Russian by herself only because she is interested! My parents took ASL classes when I was a baby (I failed the newborn test) and for years after. I didn't speak until late even with ST so probably without ASL as a baby I would have no language at all. My mom thinks sign is a natural language - she had my sister teach her hearing kids (my neices) sign because they can learn sign before speech. My mom says she probably would learn ASL without me because it is a great language.

To me the worse time in school are when I focus too much on oral/speech. The first semester of college was horrible without interpreters (my bad decision). For many many years ST was a waste because they only teach sounds and not meaning, how to use the word etc so much. Knowing to put your tongue "here" and lips "this" etc doesn't help with math, science, or even English class. My parents changed my ST for more understanding and word use and less time per week. Then ST was much better, but I wasted so many hours on nothing to me.

I can't imagine a family not knowing ASL or a deaf/HoH kid. Probably I would flunk school and not communicate with my family. Just typing this........I can't imagine - your family not communicating? As a kid I would die because of sadness. I am lucky I guess with my parents.

JME.

 

[Kaitin]

As a parent of both a hearing and a deaf child there is a vast difference between the two and how they acquire spoken language so to use your hearing children as an example of how deaf children should be taught language is not a valid example. In fact, it is inconsistent with what you later state for although you taught your hearing children two languages simultaneously you go on to state that deaf children should be taught ASL "from day 1 and add whatever later." I guess you do not think deaf children are as capable as hearing children. How then do you explain Cloggy's daughter who is at the very least tri-lingual?

While many deaf children can benefit from being taught sign and oral language simultaneously, there are some deaf children who gravitate towards and grasp oral language more than others. That many children who are implanted early are able to acquire spoken language at rates comparable to their hearing peers disproves your statement that it delays the "windows of learning opportunities". In fact, studies have consistently shown the correlation between the closer implantation is to the onset of deafness and acquistion of oral language. That you choose to refer to cochlear implants and HAs as "some mechanical device" evidences the fact that you do not understand how they can assist the child's development of a spoken language.

Each child is different and no one approach works the same for all. To say that a particular method "makes no sense" when there are many children who have benefited from the method is truly what "makes no sense". What "makes sense" is for parents to be open to all methods and to utilize those, or in some instances, that method, which are/is best for their particular child.

Rick - I am sincere - thank you for this so thoughtful post. We don't agree probably on many ideas but I like understanding your thinking.

 

[jillio]

As a parent of both a hearing and a deaf child there is a vast difference between the two and how they acquire spoken language so to use your hearing children as an example of how deaf children should be taught language is not a valid example. In fact, it is inconsistent with what you later state for although you taught your hearing children two languages simultaneously you go on to state that deaf children should be taught ASL "from day 1 and add whatever later." I guess you do not think deaf children are as capable as hearing children. How then do you explain Cloggy's daughter who is at the very least tri-lingual?

While many deaf children can benefit from being taught sign and oral language simultaneously, there are some deaf children who gravitate towards and grasp oral language more than others. That many children who are implanted early are able to acquire spoken language at rates comparable to their hearing peers disproves your statement that it delays the "windows of learning opportunities". In fact, studies have consistently shown the correlation between the closer implantation is to the onset of deafness and acquistion of oral language. That you choose to refer to cochlear implants and HAs as "some mechanical device" evidences the fact that you do not understand how they can assist the child's development of a spoken language.

Each child is different and no one approach works the same for all. To say that a particular method "makes no sense" when there are many children who have benefited from the method is truly what "makes no sense". What "makes sense" is for parents to be open to all methods and to utilize those, or in some instances, that method, which are/is best for their particular child.

If there are so many deaf children who, when implanted early, are able to acquire spoken language at the same rates as their hearing peers, how do you account for the consistent discrepancies in both verbal testing and academic achievement rates of deaf children who have been restricted to an oral only environment?

Yes, there is a difference in the way that a deaf child and a hearing child acquire spoken language. That is the whole point. However, there is not a difference inthe way a deaf child acquires language through signs and the way a hearing child acquires language through auditory channels. The cognitive process is the same. The fact that spoken language is not acquired naturally and must be learned through directive action is the best argument there is for including sign in a deaf child's environment.

One can be trilingual in that one is able to understand a language well enough for limited use, but not be fluent in any of the 3 languages. The goal for deaf children is fluency in L1 language, with an L2 language developed to fluency through the skills instilled through natural acquisition of the L1 language. If one is language delayed in the L1 language, then any other language learned will have not just the delays evident in the L1 language, but those delays will be compounded with each additional language. So, while Cloggy's daughter may have limited usage of 2 or more languges, she is still delayed by 2 years. That impacts her ability to use any of the languages to native fluency.