To Implant or Not to Implant??

[stormpraiser91]

I just want to clarify something:

I am not some audist jerk trying to cause trouble. Yes, I am hearing, but I am an ASL major and I want to learn about Deaf culture, not put it down or belittle it.

I am not trying to start an argument or a flame war or anything. I'm not even sure what my opinion is on the issue, although I lean toward "wait until they're old enough to decide." I started this thread to get help with a paper I'm writing; it's as simple as that.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone.

 

[jillio]

Well, the last few posts were in regard to deciding to identify as Deaf, not deciding about implantation. Perhaps that is why you were confused. One can have a CI and still identify as Deaf. But not as a child. Voluntary cultural identification requires a level of understanding that a small child does not have.

 

[posts from hell]

Old enough to understand the implications of a cultural affiliation. Certainly not 10 or 12. Definately not 5 or 6. Developmentally impossible except in the case of a genuis level IQ and maturity.

Funny.. I just spoke with a lady who was telling me her memories of this decision making...

She was 8-9 or so, and wanted it just because it was cool to have something sticking to her head. She did not understand that it was for hearing.

Her mother observed this very closely and decided not to implant her, and she says "thank god!"

 

[jillio]

Funny.. I just spoke with a lady who was telling me her memories of this decision making...

She was 8-9 or so, and wanted it just because it was cool to have something sticking to her head. She did not understand that it was for hearing.

Her mother observed this very closely and decided not to implant her, and she says "thank god!"

Exactly. Parents need to understand what a child's motivation is before going, "Oh, oh! She wants a CI. That confirms it!"

 

[stormpraiser91]

Why? So he gets biased information that says all kids with implants can hear like hearing kids, and it is the only way to manage childhood deafness? So he can have parents tell him what their biased, audist observations are? Did you read the research that your buddy Cloggy posted? Overestimation is rampant in partental report. Nice try.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Sunshine]

Parents tend believe CI kids hear perfect, as hearies. Think CI magic fix. Think child hear everything, hear "normally". Is not true.

 

[posts from hell]

Parents tend believe CI kids hear perfect, as hearies. Think CI magic fix. Think child hear everything, hear "normally". Is not true.

this.

 

[GrendelQ]

Parents tend believe CI kids hear perfect, as hearies. Think CI magic fix. Think child hear everything, hear "normally". Is not true.

No parent of a child with a CI thinks that. Many are thrilled with what their children can hear, many children are thrilled with what they can hear, but no one who knows anything at all about how a CI really works would ever consider it a "magic fix." Our children are deaf, but they can access sound amazingly well with this little tool, this technology -- when it's turned on. It's only those who watch from afar who fear we believe it's a "cure" or a "fix." It's not a cure or fix any more than a hearing aid is -- does that make you no longer deaf? Fixed?

A wheelchair might provides someone with access, with mobility, and he or she might thinks that's great. It's wonderful technology, but he doesn't think he's been "fixed."

 

[Sunshine]

I see many parents CI kids who think this way, GrendelQ. Glad you not one them. Is a shame, really. Some kids benefit much from CI, yes. Access sound well, yes. Not all...and is sad when parent denial. "See? She turn, she hear it! She cured!" mentality. My friend give her son CI, then miss many map session after. He almost never wear it. She wonder why he still "act deaf". They think they help child, but they do grave disservice.

 

[jillio]

What do you mean by that?

It means that parents overestimate their child's functioning levels, abilities to function in a totally oral environment, and their happiness and social adjustment. As is evidenced by the differences in parental reports and reports from professionals that actually use specific criteria and know what to look for, and in the reports given by the children themselves.

 

[GrendelQ]

What do you mean by that?

Cloggy's article might help with your pro/con:

There's a section in which parents' initial high expectations by and large were found to match up with their experiences and outcomes, with future concern expressed in the area of literacy. I think it says that a tenth did not find their expectations met by experience.

The children's teachers scored the students a bit lower against 4 scales. Some reasons were put out there for why teachers didn't score the students as high as parents, but more studies are forthcoming to dive into this: the report states that the teachers may not be familiar with CIs or that the children are "still deaf," they may not be accommodating them, assuming that they would be interacting exactly as hearing students, and some of the teachers indicated that they felt that the kids without Auslan had better outcomes, so they may not be fully supporting those kids who are bilingual or may be downgrading scores on those who use sign.

The quantitative findings indicate that this group of parents as a whole had held relatively high expectations of their children’s communication, social, academic, wellbeing and future life outcomes from cochlear implantation. They also indicate that the parents’ experiences of their children’s outcomes with their cochlear implants were relatively high. There was quite a close match between expectations and experiences, and where there were high levels of uncertainty in expectations, these were informed by experiences, usually in a positive direction. There were particular outliers from this general conclusion in the academic achievements domain, particularly in the case of achievements in literacy and numeracy, where parents’ uncertainty about possible outcomes moved in both directions with experience, but with more parents indicating a move in a negative direction than was found in the other domains. This is obviously of concern.

 

[posts from hell]

Let the deaf people answer this one?

 

[Mountain Man]

Parents tend believe CI kids hear perfect, as hearies. Think CI magic fix. Think child hear everything, hear "normally". Is not true.

Classic example:

my 5YO's situation: once implanted (and activated) she had immediate access to sound and within a couple of months was tested at the measured level of a typical hearing child, including access to all speech sounds...

She might have access to enough speech sounds to effectively use spoken language, but she doesn't have access to all speech sounds and certainly not to the "level of a typical hearing child".

Another common claim is that children with cochlear implants have "natural access to spoken language". No, they really don't. They have access, yes, but it's not natural, and the vast majority of children with CI require years of extensive spoken language therapy to get the most out of their implants; also, studies show that early gains can be lost once the child stops language therapy. A child with genuine natural access to language typically does not require this kind of training and support.

Anybody who makes either of these claims is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation. This is the kind of thing Jillio is referring to when she says that "Overestimation is rampant in parental report" and is the catalyst behind our most heated arguments here at AllDeaf.com.

 

[GrendelQ]

Classic example:


She might have access to enough speech sounds to effectively use spoken language, but she doesn't have access to all speech sounds and certainly not to the "level of a typical hearing child".

Another common claim is that children with cochlear implants have "natural access to spoken language". No, they really don't. They have access, yes, but it's not natural, and the vast majority of children with CI require years of extensive spoken language therapy to get the most out of their implants; also, studies show that early gains can be lost once the child stops language therapy. A child with genuine natural access to language typically does not require this kind of training and support.

Anybody who makes either of these claims is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation. This is the kind of thing Jillio is referring to when she says that "Overestimation is rampant in parental report" and is the catalyst behind our most heated arguments here at AllDeaf.com.

Fortunately I'm a bit more familiar with my child's test results and how she has been measured, as well as to what her access to sound has been like than MountainMan (who is a hearing parent of an HOH or deaf child, not sure which).

And as you can see from the report Cloggy (who is a hearing parent of a child with CIs) posted that Jillio (who is a hearing parent of a deaf adult) has referenced so often as 'proving her point', expectations were largely met or surpassed by experience. Not "overestimated" at all. I've found that to be the case in my experience, too. We went in with very low expectations, but have been astounded by the overwhelmingly positive outcomes. And fortunately in our case, we have very knowledgable teachers who give even more glowing report than we would, ourselves.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Parents tend believe CI kids hear perfect, as hearies. Think CI magic fix. Think child hear everything, hear "normally". Is not true.

Classic example:

my 5YO's situation: once implanted (and activated) she had immediate access to sound and within a couple of months was tested at the measured level of a typical hearing child, including access to all speech sounds...

She might have access to enough speech sounds to effectively use spoken language, but she doesn't have access to all speech sounds and certainly not to the "level of a typical hearing child".

Another common claim is that children with cochlear implants have "natural access to spoken language". No, they really don't. They have access, yes, but it's not natural, and the vast majority of children with CI require years of extensive spoken language therapy to get the most out of their implants; also, studies show that early gains can be lost once the child stops language therapy. A child with genuine natural access to language typically does not require this kind of training and support.

Anybody who makes either of these claims is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation. This is the kind of thing Jillio is referring to when she says that "Overestimation is rampant in parental report" and is the catalyst behind our most heated arguments here at AllDeaf.com.

actually, you are wrong. My child (and the majority of kids with implants) have access to all the sounds of speech. How do i know that? Because she is given speech discrimination testing that shows that she does.

also, i see that you object to the "normal hearing levels" phrase as well. Well, "normal hearing levels" are defined by audiology as less than 15 db, and since our children hear at that level, what would you prefer we say?

 

[jillio]

Fortunately I'm a bit more familiar with my child's test results and how she has been measured, as well as to what her access to sound has been like than MountainMan (who is a hearing parent of an HOH or deaf child, not sure which).

And as you can see from the report Cloggy (who is a hearing parent of a child with CIs) posted that Jillio (who is a hearing parent of a deaf adult) has referenced so often as 'proving her point', expectations were largely met or surpassed by experience. Not "overestimated" at all. I've found that to be the case in my experience, too. We went in with very low expectations, but have been astounded by the overwhelmingly positive outcomes. And fortunately in our case, we have very knowledgable teachers who give even more glowing report than we would, ourselves.

And you are a parent. You have parental bias, and as Cloggy's article, and other research show, inflate and use misattribution in reporting functioning of your child.

I guess you overlooked the part about the variance in professional report and parental report. LOL. Not surprising. Not to mention, parental report is the least reliable measure to use.

But that's okay. I hope he accesses the thread. The research concerns are all in there, as well as the fact that this is an uplublished report from researchers uninvolved with deafness at any level..

And thanks for bringing it up: I am the hearing parent of a Deaf adult, and I also work with deaf kids on a daily basis as a professional. My experience certainly has greater scope across the population than the parent of a pre-schooler. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



actually, you are wrong. My child (and the majority of kids with implants) have access to all the sounds of speech. How do i know that? Because she is given speech discrimination testing that shows that she does.

also, i see that you object to the "normal hearing levels" phrase as well. Well, "normal hearing levels" are defined by audiology as less than 15 db, and since our children hear at that level, what would you prefer we say?

Parental bias and misattribution. It is a proven construct. Why do you have such a problem admitting that you are not objective when it comes to your own child, nor do you know how to take your observations and analyze them from a subjective perspective? The more you deny, the more it confirms your complete inability to be subjective.

But, hey, thanks for confirming what I was explaining, what Cloggy's report showed, and what MM said.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



actually, you are wrong. My child (and the majority of kids with implants) have access to all the sounds of speech. How do i know that? Because she is given speech discrimination testing that shows that she does.

also, i see that you object to the "normal hearing levels" phrase as well. Well, "normal hearing levels" are defined by audiology as less than 15 db, and since our children hear at that level, what would you prefer we say?

Parental bias and misattribution. It is a proven construct. Why do you have such a problem admitting that you are not objective when it comes to your own child, nor do you know how to take your observations and analyze them from a subjective perspective? The more you deny, the more it confirms your complete inability to be subjective.

But, hey, thanks for confirming what I was explaining, what Cloggy's report showed, and what MM said.

i'm not the person who gives the discrim or audiological testing, so how am i inflating it? These are opinion questions. These can be measured.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



i'm not the person who gives the discrim or audiological testing, so how am i inflating it? These are opinion questions. These can be measured.

**smh**

If you truly don't get it, no amount of explaining is going to help at this point. But if you truly don't get it, you have no business claiming to mentor others.

Where's deafguy been lately? Give up his account?

 

[Mountain Man]

My child (and the majority of kids with implants) have access to all the sounds of speech. How do i know that? Because she is given speech discrimination testing that shows that she does.

It is a physical impossibility for a CI to give access to the full range of speech sounds. We're talking 24 electrodes versus thousands of cilia in the inner ear. CI allows reception of sounds at a limited number of points along the speech banana, but that's a long ways from giving access to all speech sounds. Individuals with CI hear with considerably less fidelity than natural hearing.

This is not presented as being for or against CI, it's simply a statement of fact. That you and Grendel and others react so strongly to this kind of unbiased information does nothing but reinforce Jillio's observation.

Look, it's O.K. to be in favor of CI while being fully aware of the limitations.