Candy

When I read The Hearing Blog’s latest post, “New Research shows Listening and Hearing is Different for Children with Cochlear Implants”, I knew right away that some of the Pro-ASL advocates would mis-interpret the study.

And, they did.

The study provides critical decision-making information for parents who opt for cochlear implant for their deaf infants.

What we have seen floating around here and there regarding cochlear implant failures are the reason why the Pro-ASL advocates need to understand this research that came out.

There are many reason why a child/infant with CI might not have achieved the desired result that parents expect from a CI.  The critical factors are the age of implantation and the Audio Verbal Therapy (AVT) that follows it, among other factors.

There are parents who think that once an infant or a child is implanted, the rest will take care of itself.  But, that is not true.  This is one of the most common reason why there are failures.

This research says that children who are implanted do not automatically know how to listen when people speak to them.

Infants born deaf are already tuned in to sights, smells, and touch, but, not sounds.  When these infants are implanted, they may not be (at least, from the beginning) responding to sounds since they are more in tuned with sights, smells and touch.

For Pro-ASL folks, this will indicate to them that deaf babies are ‘naturally deaf’ and should be left alone since it might indicate they are predestined to be deaf and should not be ‘fixed.”

However, since technology is available. Parents have had to make decisions about the long-term success of their child. Many parents know they are at a disadvantage since they do not know sign language.  Many know that they will never be fluent – fluent enough to provide their child with complex language environment.  For many parents, they might find the long-term possibility of their deaf child being successful is to work with the language and the family dynamics that are already present in their family.  And for many, that would be listening and speaking as everyone in their family does it.  These are only some of the reasons why parents opt for a CI for their child.

The argument we have seen in the deafosphere regarding combining ASL with AVT tend to be based on the desire of Pro-ASL folk’s goal to preserve deaf culture and deaf way of life rather than respecting many well-informed parents decision for their deaf child.

ASL and AVT cannot be used at the same time.  There is a time period where AVT has to be the main focus in order for CI to be a success.  There is a time period after AVT where sign language can be introduced where it does not affect a child’s ability to listen and speak.  Using ASL and AVT concurrently defeats the purpose of AVT.   It just does not compute.  This is one area where many Pro-ASL folks failed to understand the purpose of AVT.  AVT is nothing like speech therapy many have went through in oral programs/schools, years ago.

This research proves that it is CRITICAL for infants to complete the required time on AVT.   To deviate from this is a wasted time, effort, and money to have a child implanted in the first place.

This research shows why parents SHOULD put AVT at the top of ‘to do’ list after their infant is implanted.  If the parent want to add sign language, they can introduce that after a child ‘graduates’ from AVT (although some professionals have different perspective and would not recommend it).

I contacted a source to get his feedback on the article and this is what was shared with me:

It takes intensive AVT until at least age six. Also, the success of CI’s is high if the child is implanted & switched on by 18 months; at 24 months & up it’s dodgy without much more AVT.

For the first three years of life the areas of the cortex where auditory and visual processing takes place overlap: When ASL (or other manual communication) is present, it “crowds out” the growth of auditory processing capacity. This is why it’s crucial that hearing impaired children be kept as far away as possible from Deafies until they are about six, as this will adversely impact their development. They’ll have a whole life ahead of them to learn ASL and Deaf Culture, if they so choose.

Many parents are currently implanting their child as young as 5-6 months, which is younger than what the FDA recommends.  A recommendation is just that and not a law that mandates.

When reading this research, we need to keep in mind that parents make decisions based on being informed and this research is one of the many out there that helps parents in that regard.

This research will help parents understand why it is extremely critical to ensure their babies get intensive AVT for as long as is required in order to reach the optimal expectation of their child benefiting from CI which is to be able to listen and speak as well as their hearing peers.  That is, if they have made the decision to opt for CI.

I hope this helps the deaf community understand why parents make the decision that they do when it comes to focusing on AVT and not considering sign language until a later period of time or not at all, when and if they choose to implant their child.  When Pro-ASL advocate for all deaf/hh babies to be taught ASL from the start (especially those already implanted), it clashes with the research such as the one linked on this post and encourages more CI failures.