You cannot hear with CI .. ??

jillio said:
I agree with you in spirit, rockdrummer. But semantics are important here because when a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child sees, "My kid has a CI and is now hearing" it is interpreted from what hearing is perceived to be from a hearing perspective. Very few parents early on are well informed about the difference between sound perception and discrimination. Audis tend to concentrate on dB levels and Hz. We know that, while these measurements tell us something, they are far from the whole picture. I not only have a deaf son, but work with deaf students on a daily basis. In particular, I have one student who has had a CI since the 6th grade. He will say, "I can hear with my CI." Having said that I have had to argue with professors who tell me, "He says he can hear. Why does he need a notetaker or terp?" Yes, that student "hears", but what he is able to discriminate is much less than what a hearing person does. That kind of misunderstanding does a great disservice to deaf students. They are perceived as asking for accommodations that aren't really necessary, of trying to take advantage of their hearing loss, and in the cases where Disability Services doesn't have anyone on staff that is knowledgeable about deafness, students are going without services. All based on a misperception of what the word "hearing" means. So semantics does come into play, and I personally believe that we need to be very specific in defining these terms to prevent such miscommunication and the fostering of unrealistic expectations.:)
Click to expand...
I see your point but would ask then, what is the proper way to put it? I have to belive that if one gains useful hearing from a CI that would be measurable in terms of language aquisition. What would you suggest as way of describing someone whom is deaf but gains useful hearing from a CI?
 
rockdrummer said:
I see your point but would ask then, what is the proper way to put it? I have to belive that if one gains useful hearing from a CI that would be measurable in terms of language aquisition. What would you suggest as way of describing someone whom is deaf but gains useful hearing from a CI?
Click to expand...

ARe u talking about useful hearing on an one on one basis? Can children with CIs gain useful hearing enough to acquire language in a noisy environment or when there are several people talking at once?

Most of my speech therapy sessions were done on an one-on-one setting in a soundproof booth. It was very easy for me to pick up what the therapist was saying to me. :dunno:
 
shel90 said:
ARe u talking about useful hearing on an one on one basis? Can children with CIs gain useful hearing enough to acquire language in a noisy environment or when there are several people talking at once?

Most of my speech therapy sessions were done on an one-on-one setting in a soundproof booth. It was very easy for me to pick up what the therapist was saying to me. :dunno:
Click to expand...
When I say language aquisition I am referring to the ability to learn how to speak. Understanding speech will obviously vary depending on the surroundings. Some with CI's can actually understand in noisy rooms depending on the programming and the individual.
 
jillio said:
I agree with you in spirit, rockdrummer. But semantics are important here because when a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child sees, "My kid has a CI and is now hearing" it is interpreted from what hearing is perceived to be from a hearing perspective. Very few parents early on are well informed about the difference between sound perception and discrimination. Audis tend to concentrate on dB levels and Hz. We know that, while these measurements tell us something, they are far from the whole picture. I not only have a deaf son, but work with deaf students on a daily basis. In particular, I have one student who has had a CI since the 6th grade. He will say, "I can hear with my CI." Having said that I have had to argue with professors who tell me, "He says he can hear. Why does he need a notetaker or terp?" Yes, that student "hears", but what he is able to discriminate is much less than what a hearing person does. That kind of misunderstanding does a great disservice to deaf students. They are perceived as asking for accommodations that aren't really necessary, of trying to take advantage of their hearing loss, and in the cases where Disability Services doesn't have anyone on staff that is knowledgeable about deafness, students are going without services. All based on a misperception of what the word "hearing" means. So semantics does come into play, and I personally believe that we need to be very specific in defining these terms to prevent such miscommunication and the fostering of unrealistic expectations.:)
Click to expand...
Rockdrummer was absolutely right in describing how I approach my daughters deafness.
You are correct that semantics do matter. Your example is correct.

What I do not like is that you suggest that I say "My kid has a CI and is now hearing".. That is completely different to "My daughter is deaf. She can hear."
The two sentenses show a completely different perspective. And if you think that parents reading this would interpret that in a wrong way.... you are selling them short.
Parents looking for information will not stop at either sentences.
I hope they will be curious and search deeper.

But getting back to your example.... children that are hard of hearing still hear.. and they can have more problems understanding speech and following classes compared to children with CI... But they hear, and a child with CI does not hear.????
 
rockdrummer said:
When I say language aquisition I am referring to the ability to learn how to speak. Understanding speech will obviously vary depending on the surroundings. Some with CI's can actually understand in noisy rooms depending on the programming and the individual.
Click to expand...


Language aquisition to u means the ability to learn how to speak? Now, I am :confused: That is the huge misconception out there but I thought u know the difference?
 
shel90 said:
ARe u talking about useful hearing on an one on one basis? Can children with CIs gain useful hearing enough to acquire language in a noisy environment or when there are several people talking at once?
.....
Click to expand...
Yes they can. Yes they do...!! Especially with bi-lateral CI - like with bi-lateral HA's - hearing in noisy environment is very well possible.

And don't forget... Even hearing people have problems in noisy environment.

When I get a call from someone at a party, I have problems understanding, since only 1 ear is getting the sound.... The person on the other side would have no problem understanding.....

But back you your question "Can children with CIs gain useful hearing enough to acquire language in a noisy environment or when there are several people talking at once?"... the answer is YES.

Of course there are different experiences per individual. But instead of looking at the successes as "exceptional" one might do better to research into why some are not..
 
Cloggy said:
Rockdrummer was absolutely right in describing how I approach my daughters deafness.
You are correct that semantics do matter. Your example is correct.

What I do not like is that you suggest that I say "My kid has a CI and is now hearing".. That is completely different to "My daughter is deaf. She can hear."
The two sentenses show a completely different perspective. And if you think that parents reading this would interpret that in a wrong way.... you are selling them short.
Parents looking for information will not stop at either sentences.
I hope they will be curious and search deeper.

But getting back to your example.... children that are hard of hearing still hear.. and they can have more problems understanding speech and following classes compared to children with CI... But they hear, and a child with CI does not hear.????
Click to expand...


I wasn't attributing that particular quote to you, but was simply using it as an example of where the semantics issue was relevant. That statement means one thing to a deaf individual, and quite another to a hearing individual. I never said that a child with a CI does not perceive sound, in the same way that a HH child perceives some sound, or a deaf child with HA perceives some sound. Hearing involves not just perceiving sound--a completely auditory function--but interpretation of that sound into meaningful clues to allow understanding of one's environment. My son can perceive sound with a digital HA--but he can discriminate none of it and therefore is not hearing. It cannot be interpreted to create meaning and understanding. A child who, with assistance can discriminate 50% of what is said but can actually perceive 100% of the sound auditorily is not hearing 100%, only 50%. Whil;e that may be sufficient in some situations for understanding, it is not sufficient in others.
 
shel90 said:
Language aquisition to u means the ability to learn how to speak? Now, I am :confused: That is the huge misconception out there but I thought u know the difference?
Click to expand...
No to me and Rockdrummer, language acquisition means, acquiring a primary language at earliest age regardless of language (if in america, either spoken english or ASL)

in other word, acquiring native mother tongue
 
Boult said:
No to me and Rockdrummer, language acquisition means, acquiring a primary language at earliest age regardless of language (if in america, either spoken english or ASL)
Click to expand...

That is what it means to me too. I was asking Rockdrummer, not anyone else, a question to make sure I didnt read him wrong.
 
jillio said:
I wasn't attributing that particular quote to you, but was simply using it as an example of where the semantics issue was relevant. That statement means one thing to a deaf individual, and quite another to a hearing individual......
Click to expand...
Got it....
jillio said:
..........I never said that a child with a CI does not perceive sound, in the same way that a HH child perceives some sound, or a deaf child with HA perceives some sound. Hearing involves not just perceiving sound--a completely auditory function--but interpretation of that sound into meaningful clues to allow understanding of one's environment. My son can perceive sound with a digital HA--but he can discriminate none of it and therefore is not hearing. It cannot be interpreted to create meaning and understanding. A child who, with assistance can discriminate 50% of what is said but can actually perceive 100% of the sound auditorily is not hearing 100%, only 50%. Whil;e that may be sufficient in some situations for understanding, it is not sufficient in others
Click to expand...

A child who, with assistance can discriminate 50% of what is said but can actually perceive 100% of the sound auditorily is not hearing 100%, only 50%.

I would say he hear 100% but understands 50%... but I agree, it's semantics.. Big part of the discusion is to agree on definition of words used.

Like I said earlier...
For some "hearing" means "not deaf". For others "hearing" means "understanding what is said" and for others "hearing" means perceiving sound....

Curious....
You said "My son can perceive sound with a digital HA--but he can discriminate none of it and therefore is not hearing.".... what is the HA for then??? Just environmental sounds??
 
Cloggy said:
Got it....


A child who, with assistance can discriminate 50% of what is said but can actually perceive 100% of the sound auditorily is not hearing 100%, only 50%.

I would say he hear 100% but understands 50%... but I agree, it's semantics.. Big part of the discusion is to agree on definition of words used.

Like I said earlier...
For some "hearing" means "not deaf". For others "hearing" means "understanding what is said" and for others "hearing" means perceiving sound....

Curious....
You said "My son can perceive sound with a digital HA--but he can discriminate none of it and therefore is not hearing.".... what is the HA for then??? Just environmental sounds??
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why he refuses to wear them. He says that the constant distraction of meaningless noinse interferes with his visual attention.
 
shel90 said:
:gpost:

I told everyone that I could hear with my HAs so my teachers took it as a sign that they could ramble on with lectures and walk around the room while rambling. I was completely lost but yea, I could "hear" their voices. It sounded like " ohip fbiaaal fipsrufg beetaaa du du du oook."
Click to expand...


:bowlol: :deal:
 
Hi Cloggy I'm way off topic and not getting in the middle of this..kinda like what came first chicken or the egg..I see you hail from Norway. My Grandmother came from there and we have a great many family there do many speak english.Family member wrote it came back in Norwegian,never heard what it said.Hmm.Just wondering.Thanks
 
jillio said:
Nor do cardiac patients suffer from the same issues deaf individuals do as a result of the malfunction of a biological function. The social implications are simply not present for the cardiac patient.
Click to expand...


Cloggy, I think she's got you there! Its true there are no social implications for those whose pacemaker or artificial heart malfunctions........just the minor inconvenience death brings!
 
rick48 said:
Cloggy, I think she's got you there! Its true there are no social implications for those whose pacemaker or artificial heart malfunctions........just the minor inconvenience death brings!
Click to expand...

Once again, malfunction of a pacemaker does not guarantee death. The pace maker does not cause the heart to beat; it regulates the heart beat. Where did the artificial heart come in to the discussion? Good attempt at sarcasm, but oops!......incorrect assumption!
 
shel90 said:
What I mean is that learning to speak is a tool not language itself..just like moving my hands is a tool (method of communication) not language itself..know what I mean?
Click to expand...
Shel and Boult, what I posted was a quote (the first line) of the description. If you go to the link and read what it says, you will see age is discussed. My question is, do you agree with the Wickpedia description? If not, what is your source?
Just curious.....
 
rockdrummer said:
Shel and Boult, what I posted was a quote (the first line) of the description. If you go to the link and read what it says, you will see age is discussed. My question is, do you agree with the Wickpedia description? If not, what is your source?
Just curious.....
Click to expand...

Yea I agree with it..what does it have to do with what we are discussing?
 
jillio said:
Once again, malfunction of a pacemaker does not guarantee death. The pace maker does not cause the heart to beat; it regulates the heart beat. Where did the artificial heart come in to the discussion? Good attempt at sarcasm, but oops!......incorrect assumption!
Click to expand...
I guess this is what I mean about semantics. Perhaps I mis-used the word. The discussion is going off on a tangent about an analogy made between a CI and a pacemaker. As you well know there are two major views on deafness. His is the pathalogical one. If you go into the discussion knowing that, it will be more productive. IMHO.
 
Back
Top