Cochlear decison

Status
Not open for further replies.
shel90 said:
Culturally Deaf people of those times said it was not a big deal because at those times, they adapted...Deaf clubs, snail mail, and etc.

In fact, many of the older culturally Deaf people feel that today's technology of VP, texting,a nd social networks are keeping Deaf people from socializing in person like they did in those days.

I never heard of them complaining about phone issues except when it came to getting discriminated by hearing employers when looking for jobs.

Anyone, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

No correction. You have it absolutely correct.
 
bbaseballboy123 said:
.... "No but did my parents do their best to do whats best for me? I would have to say yes. They did their job, and im happy for what they have done."
I was implanted at 2, and i obviously did not have any input, BUT ONCE AGAIN, my parents did what they thought was best for ME. Damn.



So I was implanted at 2, and started with very intense speech program. Now I probably talk along the lines of "perfect". No one really knows I'm deaf until they see something on my ear or i say something.

Its like training a puppy. the younger they are, the better they will be trained. Same with cochlea, training/adapting the cochlea will make it hear better, hear the lang English at a eariler age than waiting til theyre like what 6 years old? wasting away 5 years of hearing English (or any other lang)
Click to expand...

Like training a puppy? I'm not even going to respond.

You are very confused. A CI does not train your cochlea. It bypasses your cochlea.
 
jillio said:
Like training a puppy? I'm not even going to respond.

You are very confused. A CI does not train your cochlea. It bypasses your cochlea.
Click to expand...

omg. CI doesn't train the cochlea. But your cochlea NEEDS TO BE TRAINED to work simultaneously with the implant.

The cochlea is like a puppy. The cochlea needs to be trained to hear well. Thats why my left is so shitty
 
bbaseballboy123 said:
omg. CI doesn't train the cochlea. But your cochlea NEEDS TO BE TRAINED to work simultaneously with the implant.

The cochlea is like a puppy. The cochlea needs to be trained to hear well. Thats why my left is so shitty
Click to expand...

Again. The CI bypasses the cochlea.


How does a cochlear implant work?

A cochlear implant is very different from a hearing aid. Hearing aids amplify sounds so they may be detected by damaged ears. Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound.

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/coch.htm
 
CI kills cochlea right? That's why it irreversible, right?
 
The newer surgeries are much less likely to destroy residual hearing than the older surgeries were.
 
Beach girl said:
The newer surgeries are much less likely to destroy residual hearing than the older surgeries were.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the short array. The short array can leave some residual hearing, but the people that are eligible for the short array are few. And the surgeons that can perform them even fewer. It is a very specialized technique. And the cochlea is still bypassed.
 
I agree that the cochlea is bypassed, of course.

You're correct that there now exists a technique which is sparing of the residual hearing. Glad we agree on that.
 
Beach girl said:
I agree that the cochlea is bypassed, of course.

You're correct that there now exists a technique which is sparing of the residual hearing. Glad we agree on that.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a surgical technique that exists. The surgeons who can perform it are few and far between and the people who are eligible do not include everyone that receives a CI. The majority of implants currently being done are still being done using the long array technique which does, in fact, destroy residual hearing.
 
StevieMont927 said:
My take on peoples' views, and correct me anyone if I'm wrong, is that it's not so much the CI itself as forcing the surgery onto an infant. What I've seen is people agree that parents should start with ASL and HAs, if the kid's ok with them, and then if the kid gets older and wants to go the CI route when s/he's old enough to make an informed decision, then it's ok. What I've seen get on people's nerves is hearing parents that want to force their deaf child to be hearing. They want to force them to hear, and speak, just like them, and aren't in the least willing to accomodate the child's deafness, even though it's much better for the child if they do. Some parents don't even take into consideration that HA's might work just as well as, if not better than, a CI for their child.
Click to expand...

I like the "Correct me anyone if I'm wrong". Very surprised jillio or someone else didn't correct some errors because it's in everyones interest that d/Deaf have good knowledge about CI and the parents of children with CI..

OK.. here's a huge error you made....
* It isn't like "if they don't like HAs then they can choose CI." HAs are not better than CI. CI is not better than HA. They are different tools.. Our daughter heard nothing with HA's THEREFORE the only way to hear was with CI.. Had she had any benefit from HAs then she would have continued with HAs.
Basically.. if you lose the ability to hear sound with HAs then there is an option to hear again with CI. But no-one will "get" a CI when he/she can still hear with a HA..

Otherwise:
* Point of view: No forcing... providing, giving. But "forcing" sounds much more dramatic of course...

* Infant screening will detect deafness shortly after birth. Signs are great to interact with the child. ASL when the child will grow up deaf, ASL or perhaps Cued Speech if the intention is to let the child hear. But nowadays, with children implanted very early, speech is very often enough to communicate 100% with the child.

* If the child is old enough to make her/his own decision... the possibilities / success are far smaller... Children implanted with CI before their first birthday follow speech development of hearing babies and infants.. d/Deaf children that after years of deafness "get" CI will need a lot of adjusting to hearing, and help learning to speak.. For children that were HH and lose the little hearing they have, it is much easier to adapt to CI.
 
Last edited:
Cloggy said:
I like the "Correct me anyone if I'm wrong". Very surprised jillio or someone else didn't correct some errors because it's in everyones interest that d/Deaf have good knowledge about CI and the parents of children with CI..

OK.. here's a huge error you made... Strange jillio didn't see that....
* It isn't like "if they don't like HAs then they can choose CI." HAs are not better than CI. CI is not better than HA. They are different tools.. Our daughter heard nothing with HA's THEREFORE the only way to hear was with CI.. Had she had any benefit from HAs then she would have continued with HAs.
Basically.. if you lose the ability to hear sound with HAs then there is an option to hear again with CI. But no-one will "get" a CI when he/she can still hear with a HA..

Otherwise:
* Point of view: No forcing... providing, giving. But "forcing" sounds much more dramatic of course...

* Infant screening will detect deafness shortly after birth. Signs are great to interact with the child. ASL when the child will grow up deaf, ASL or perhaps Cued Speech if the intention is to let the child hear. But nowadays, with children implanted very early, speech is very often enough to communicate 100% with the child.

* If the child is old enough to make her/his own decision... the possibilities / success are far smaller... Children implanted with CI before their first birthday follow speech development of hearing babies and infants.. d/Deaf children that after years of deafness "get" CI will need a lot of adjusting to hearing, and help learning to speak.. For children that were HH and lose the little hearing they have, it is much easier to adapt to CI.
Click to expand...

Again, why is it MEDICALLY necessary for an infant to have a Cochlear implant? I do believe it's forcing in regards to a child having a CI. If the child cannot consent to an unnecessary surgery it is forcing. You could "provide" a child with an environment in which she'll thrive. You could even "provide" HAs. Once it becomes invasive, however, and when the child doesn't understand what's going on and can't consent, then it's forcing.

I have no doubt that children will (usually) learn to more easily understand speech, and to speak well, if they're implanted early. The point, however, is that it's not a medically necessary procedure but more one done because it's more convenient for hearing parents and members of the family.
 
Wirelessly posted

StevieMont927 said:
Cloggy said:
I like the "Correct me anyone if I'm wrong". Very surprised jillio or someone else didn't correct some errors because it's in everyones interest that d/Deaf have good knowledge about CI and the parents of children with CI..





OK.. here's a huge error you made... Strange jillio didn't see that....


* It isn't like "if they don't like HAs then they can choose CI." HAs are not better than CI. CI is not better than HA. They are different tools.. Our daughter heard nothing with HA's THEREFORE the only way to hear was with CI[/B][/B].. Had she had any benefit from HAs then she would have continued with HAs.


Basically.. if you lose the ability to hear sound with HAs then there is an option to hear again with CI. But no-one will "get" a CI when he/she can still hear with a HA..





Otherwise:


* Point of view: No forcing... providing, giving. But "forcing" sounds much more dramatic of course...





* Infant screening will detect deafness shortly after birth. Signs are great to interact with the child. ASL when the child will grow up deaf, ASL or perhaps Cued Speech if the intention is to let the child hear. But nowadays, with children implanted very early, speech is very often enough to communicate 100% with the child.





* If the child is old enough to make her/his own decision... the possibilities / success are far smaller... Children implanted with CI before their first birthday follow speech development of hearing babies and infants.. d/Deaf children that after years of deafness "get" CI will need a lot of adjusting to hearing, and help learning to speak.. For children that were HH and lose the little hearing they have, it is much easier to adapt to CI.[/B][/B]
Click to expand...





Again, why is it MEDICALLY necessary for an infant to have a Cochlear implant? I do believe it's forcing in regards to a child having a CI. If the child cannot consent to an unnecessary surgery it is forcing. You could "provide" a child with an environment in which she'll thrive. You could even "provide" HAs. Once it becomes invasive, however, and when the child doesn't understand what's going on and can't consent, then it's forcing.





I have no doubt that children will (usually) learn to more easily understand speech, and to speak well, if they're implanted early. The point, however, is that it's not a medically necessary procedure but more one done because it's more convenient for hearing parents and members of the family.
Click to expand...

I agree, born deaf in a hearing family and in a hearing family with husband and children....it is just natural for hearies to think speech is necessary - They can't imagine life without speech or hearing someone's voice. They are wired that way; but Deaf are visual.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Ability to and right to are very different things.

Where did you get the infomation that has led you to the conclusion of "earlier the better"?
Click to expand...
Ahh.. the "proof your statement" comment.. funny how that is never needed for the statements you make....

So many articles have come to this conclusion... but how about this....
With your instant library of articles from your university, have you found any articles that have concluded the opposite?

Ah well...
For the interested: try this one
---------------
Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children

Tait, M.E., Nikolopoulos, T.P. and Lutman, M.E. (2007) Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children. International Journal of Pediatric Otolaryngology, 71, (4), 603-610. (doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.12.010)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.12.010

Description/Abstract

Background
Preverbal vocal and auditory skills are essential precursors of spoken language development and they have been shown previously to predict later speech perception and production outcomes in young implanted deaf children.

Objectives
To assess the effect of age at implantation on the development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted children.

Methods
The study assessed 99 children, 33 in each of three groups (those implanted between 1 and 2 years; 2 and 3 years; and 3 and 4 years). Preverbal skills were measured in three areas: turn taking, autonomy and auditory awareness of spoken language, using the Tait video analysis method.

Results
The youngest implanted group made an exceptional progress outperforming in all measures the two other groups (p < 0.01), 6 and 12 months post-implantation, whereas there was no such difference before implantation. In the youngest group there was also significantly greater use of an auditory/oral style of communication: 85% of the group by 12 months post-implantation compared with 30% and 18% of the two older groups.

Conclusions
Vocal and auditory preverbal skills develop much more rapidly in children implanted between 1 and 2 years in comparison with older implanted children and reach a significantly higher level by 6 and 12 months post-implantation. In addition, younger implanted children are significantly more likely by 12 months post-implantation to adopt an auditory/oral mode of communication. These findings favour cochlear implantation as early as between 1 and 2 years, provided that correct diagnosis and adequate hearing-aid trial have been achieved.
 
Last edited:
BecLak said:
Wirelessly posted



I agree, born deaf in a hearing family and in a hearing family with husband and children....it is just natural for hearies to think speech is necessary - They can't imagine life without speech or hearing someone's voice. They are wired that way; but Deaf are visual.
Click to expand...
Not "speech is necessary" because obviously there are plenty of d/Deaf people around that don't use speech. (Then again, also plenty of deaf people using speech..)
So.. try to replace "speech is necessary" with "hearing sounds is wonderful"...

Obviously for a hearing person it's difficult to imagine no sound, and not being able to hear other people. For a deaf person it's difficult to imagine a world with sounds.
Perhaps the biggest fear for people that communicate with speech is the loss of communication. Something like being dropped in the middle of China without knowing the Chinese language... But, Chinese can be learned. Sign language can be learned.

My daughter would probably have been perfectly happy growing up deaf... Now she's perfectly happy hearing..
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Yes, there is a surgical technique that exists. The surgeons who can perform it are few and far between and the people who are eligible do not include everyone that receives a CI. The majority of implants currently being done are still being done using the long array technique which does, in fact, destroy residual hearing.
Click to expand...
.... residual hearing that is so low that not even a HA can help to make sense of the sounds that come in... Residual hearing that it is of no use...

BUT... bypassing the haircells in the cochlea.... stimulating the nerve in the cochlea directly... sounds can make sense again with CI.. GREAT..!! - if you want to hear..
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Like training a puppy? I'm not even going to respond.
Click to expand...
Excellent
jillio said:
You are very confused. A CI does not train your cochlea. It bypasses your cochlea.
Click to expand...
You are very confused. It doesn't bypass the cochlea... it bypasses that haircells inside the cochlea. If it would bypass the cochlea... there would be no point inserting it in there...

jillio said:
I disagree. Parents have the right to make said decisions, but unless they are fully informed and considering a perspective other than their own hearing perspective, they are lacking in ability to.
Click to expand...
Agree.. just like d/Deaf people should be fully informed about it... but I didn't see you correct a post in this thread where someone said "if you don't like HAs you get a CI".. Guess you don't want deaf people to get too informed...

jillio said:
.....You experience is not generalizable to anyone but you. It is anecdote and individual.
Click to expand...
You experience is not generalizable to anyone but you. It is anecdote and individual.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top