Showing posts with label news articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news articles. Show all posts
July 25, 2014
Siblings of Children with Hearing Loss
Here is a good article about how to best support the siblings of children with hearing loss. It's something we struggle with in our household. We always feel like Reyana and Kelton give up a lot for Audrena, so we make a conscious effort to do things that involve only them. It's hard. They don't always understand that the therapists are there to help Audrena learn to talk because it looks like play to them. The physical therapy time looks like a fun obstacle course, and they want to participate. Well, Reyana understands a little more because she is the oldest, so she does things like reading bedtime stories to Audrena, knowing on a 7-year-old level that she is helping her little sister. But there are plenty of times when it's just plain unfair that so much of our attention goes to Audrena. It's a balancing act.
March 12, 2013
Cochlear Implant HELP Interview with Stuart McNaughton
Stuart McNaughton is the author of "He Is Not Me," a book about his life as a deaf child and a hearing adult after he chose a cochlear implant. Here is my disclaimer. I just purchased the book, so I have not yet had time to read it, but I will likely come back to give my thoughts when I am done. Implanted adults are giving the book rave reviews.
Click the link below to read the interview.
Cochlear Implant HELP Interview with Stuart McNaughton
Many things that Stuart said in the interview really resonated with me. Also, what his mother said struck a chord. Below is the direct quote from the interview.
Stuart's book is available via Kindle edition, but you do not need a Kindle to purchase and read it. You can download the Kindle app for PC, or the app for the android phone/tablet. Purchase "He Is Not Me" here. You can also visit Stuart's website or Facebook page.
Click the link below to read the interview.
Cochlear Implant HELP Interview with Stuart McNaughton
Many things that Stuart said in the interview really resonated with me. Also, what his mother said struck a chord. Below is the direct quote from the interview.
What do you think your parents’ advice would be to the parents of deaf children today?
That is exactly what many professionals and implant patients told us when we started the process. We did our best to follow that advice, and I firmly believe it was golden. It's vitally important for a child to be implanted as early as possible, if that is the path that the parents intend to take. Time is of the essence. Today we wish we had known sooner that Audrena was deaf. But as it is, we are thrilled with the progress she has made, and we know in our hearts that we made the right decision for her.I am laughing at this very question. In fact, I just called my parents and my mother answered the phone. I posed this question to her, and this is what she said: get lots of advice, do the research, but don’t delay. I guess this kind of ties in with the Author’s Message on the He Is Not Me website, in which I state that I honestly didn’t start living until I was twenty-three, the day I got my cochlear implant.
Stuart's book is available via Kindle edition, but you do not need a Kindle to purchase and read it. You can download the Kindle app for PC, or the app for the android phone/tablet. Purchase "He Is Not Me" here. You can also visit Stuart's website or Facebook page.
October 23, 2012
More Research to Support Earlier Implantation
http://journals.lww.com/thehearingjournal/Fulltext/2012/10000/Journal_Club___FDA_Indications_for_Pediatric.9.aspx
FDA Indications for Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Fail to Reflect Current Research
By René H. Gifford, PhD
"Advances in diagnostic audiology and the creation of early hearing detection and intervention programs in all states and territories have lowered the average age of hearing loss identification to 2-3 months, down from 2½-3 years in the early 1990s. The US Food and Drug Administration’s labeled indications for pediatric cochlear implantation, however, have remained unchanged since 2000 despite this significant improvement.
The FDA recommends 12 months as the minimum age for cochlear implantation. This does not mean that infants under 12 months will not benefit from cochlear implantation, but obtaining behavioral hearing estimates for the youngest infants was difficult. This concern may not be as valid today given the audiologic checks and balances at our disposal for behavioral assessments of hearing and physiologic estimates of auditory function. This may also support the argument for lowering the FDA-approved age for cochlear implantation from 12 months to slightly younger, perhaps 6 to 9 months.
Many developmental changes occur in the first year of life that may be missed in an infant with severe to profound hearing loss. This is true even for infants with appropriately fitted hearing aids because audibility is often insufficient to allow consistent auditory access to spoken language, at least for those with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.
Word segmentation — the process of dividing connected discourse into meaningful units such as individual words — has been to shown to develop rapidly between 7½ and 10½ months. (Science 1997;277[5334]:1984.) Infants have the capacity for long-term storage of new words by 8 months, which is an important precursor to auditory-based language learning. (Science 1997;277[5334]:1984; J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2003;29[6]:1143.) An infant with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss who has limited aided audibility may be missing out developing these critical auditory-based, language-learning opportunities.
Cochlear Implantation in the Very Young Child: Issues Unique to the Under-1 Population
Cosetti M, Roland JT Jr.
Trends Amplif
2010;14[1]:46
Cosetti and Roland summarized the literature regarding the surgical and anesthetic risks associated with surgery in infants, noting a higher incidence of morbidity, mortality, and life-threatening adverse surgical events for infants younger than 12 months. They explained that the majority of reported concerns and complications were confounded by emergency surgery, for which young and possibly medically fragile patients were unable to fast and thus had a greater risk of aspiration. The authors noted that a number of studies demonstrate no greater anesthetic risk for infants younger than 12 months during cochlear implant surgery.
Surgical issues unique to infants younger than 12 months include intraoperative blood loss, facial nerve anatomy, skull thickness (<1 mm), fixation of the receiver or stimulator package, thin scalp flap, and device migration with skull growth. It was reported, however, that these known variables can be moderated with a highly trained surgical team with extensive pediatric experience.
Word Learning in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Effects of Early Auditory Experience
Houston DM, Stewart J, et al
Dev Sci
2012;15:[3]448
A growing body of literature demonstrates higher levels of word and language acquisition, speech perception, speech intelligibility, and vocabulary development for infants implanted under 12 months, even when compared with children implanted at age 2 years. (Dev Sci 2012;15[3]:448; Otol Neurotol 2010;31[8]:1254.) The authors examined whether age at implantation affects a child’s word learning and vocabulary development, looking at novel word learning in 25 prelingually deaf children who had been implanted under 24 months (age range 21.7-40.1 months) and 23 children with normal hearing (age range 10.3-20.1 months). The children were evaluated on speech perception, expressive vocabulary, and novel word learning.
Children implanted between 6 and 13 months exhibited significantly better word learning abilities than children implanted between 15 and 20 months. This is interesting because children implanted between 15 and 20 months would generally not be considered as having received “late” implantation. Word learning ability significantly correlated with expressive vocabulary at two years postactivation. Children who spent more time looking at the correct item on the computer monitor corresponding with the auditory stimulus exhibited significantly higher levels of expressive vocabulary.
Children implanted between 6 and 13 months not only exhibited higher word learning abilities, but also did not differ significantly from their normal hearing peers. The children implanted later at 15 to 20 months, on the other hand, exhibited significantly worse word learning abilities than their normal hearing peers.
These data were consistent with previous studies also showing significantly greater language outcomes for children implanted in their first year of life. (Volta Review 2003;103:303; Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011:75[4]:504; Ear Hear 2007;28[2 Suppl]:11S.) The authors suggested that early implantation results in better language outcomes, which is likely related to early auditory experience. (Restor Neurol Neurosci 2010;28[2]:157.) They hypothesized that providing earlier auditory experience to the developing brain affords development of cognitive mechanisms that are known precursors to language learning, such as audiovisual integration. Clearly more research is needed to test these hypotheses. It would have significant clinical, familial, societal, educational, and financial implications if research determined that children implanted under 13 months demonstrate age appropriate language outcomes by just 2 years postactivation.
Given the known benefits of cochlear implantation for children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, a thorough revision of FDA-labeled indications for pediatric implant candidacy is well overdue. It is likely that criteria in the near future will include children as young as 9 months, perhaps even younger. A child under 12 months who is healthy enough and adequately prepared to undergo surgery has no major risks for cochlear implantation. The potential benefits associated with early implantation and recommended early intervention may be the key to closing the gap permanently between children with cochlear implants and their normal hearing peers for speech, language, and academic outcomes.
(Dr. Gifford is the director of the cochlear implant program and an associate director of pediatric audiology at the Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center and an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, all in Nashville. Her NIH-funded research focuses on electric and acoustic hearing, speech perception, spatial hearing with cochlear implants, and preimplant prediction of postoperative outcomes.)"
*Here is my official disclaimer. I am linking back to the original article so as not to infringe on any copyrights. This article appeared on The Hearing Journal's website.*
FDA Indications for Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Fail to Reflect Current Research
By René H. Gifford, PhD
"Advances in diagnostic audiology and the creation of early hearing detection and intervention programs in all states and territories have lowered the average age of hearing loss identification to 2-3 months, down from 2½-3 years in the early 1990s. The US Food and Drug Administration’s labeled indications for pediatric cochlear implantation, however, have remained unchanged since 2000 despite this significant improvement.
The FDA recommends 12 months as the minimum age for cochlear implantation. This does not mean that infants under 12 months will not benefit from cochlear implantation, but obtaining behavioral hearing estimates for the youngest infants was difficult. This concern may not be as valid today given the audiologic checks and balances at our disposal for behavioral assessments of hearing and physiologic estimates of auditory function. This may also support the argument for lowering the FDA-approved age for cochlear implantation from 12 months to slightly younger, perhaps 6 to 9 months.
Many developmental changes occur in the first year of life that may be missed in an infant with severe to profound hearing loss. This is true even for infants with appropriately fitted hearing aids because audibility is often insufficient to allow consistent auditory access to spoken language, at least for those with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.
Word segmentation — the process of dividing connected discourse into meaningful units such as individual words — has been to shown to develop rapidly between 7½ and 10½ months. (Science 1997;277[5334]:1984.) Infants have the capacity for long-term storage of new words by 8 months, which is an important precursor to auditory-based language learning. (Science 1997;277[5334]:1984; J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2003;29[6]:1143.) An infant with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss who has limited aided audibility may be missing out developing these critical auditory-based, language-learning opportunities.
Cochlear Implantation in the Very Young Child: Issues Unique to the Under-1 Population
Cosetti M, Roland JT Jr.
Trends Amplif
2010;14[1]:46
Cosetti and Roland summarized the literature regarding the surgical and anesthetic risks associated with surgery in infants, noting a higher incidence of morbidity, mortality, and life-threatening adverse surgical events for infants younger than 12 months. They explained that the majority of reported concerns and complications were confounded by emergency surgery, for which young and possibly medically fragile patients were unable to fast and thus had a greater risk of aspiration. The authors noted that a number of studies demonstrate no greater anesthetic risk for infants younger than 12 months during cochlear implant surgery.
Surgical issues unique to infants younger than 12 months include intraoperative blood loss, facial nerve anatomy, skull thickness (<1 mm), fixation of the receiver or stimulator package, thin scalp flap, and device migration with skull growth. It was reported, however, that these known variables can be moderated with a highly trained surgical team with extensive pediatric experience.
Word Learning in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Effects of Early Auditory Experience
Houston DM, Stewart J, et al
Dev Sci
2012;15:[3]448
A growing body of literature demonstrates higher levels of word and language acquisition, speech perception, speech intelligibility, and vocabulary development for infants implanted under 12 months, even when compared with children implanted at age 2 years. (Dev Sci 2012;15[3]:448; Otol Neurotol 2010;31[8]:1254.) The authors examined whether age at implantation affects a child’s word learning and vocabulary development, looking at novel word learning in 25 prelingually deaf children who had been implanted under 24 months (age range 21.7-40.1 months) and 23 children with normal hearing (age range 10.3-20.1 months). The children were evaluated on speech perception, expressive vocabulary, and novel word learning.
Children implanted between 6 and 13 months exhibited significantly better word learning abilities than children implanted between 15 and 20 months. This is interesting because children implanted between 15 and 20 months would generally not be considered as having received “late” implantation. Word learning ability significantly correlated with expressive vocabulary at two years postactivation. Children who spent more time looking at the correct item on the computer monitor corresponding with the auditory stimulus exhibited significantly higher levels of expressive vocabulary.
Children implanted between 6 and 13 months not only exhibited higher word learning abilities, but also did not differ significantly from their normal hearing peers. The children implanted later at 15 to 20 months, on the other hand, exhibited significantly worse word learning abilities than their normal hearing peers.
These data were consistent with previous studies also showing significantly greater language outcomes for children implanted in their first year of life. (Volta Review 2003;103:303; Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011:75[4]:504; Ear Hear 2007;28[2 Suppl]:11S.) The authors suggested that early implantation results in better language outcomes, which is likely related to early auditory experience. (Restor Neurol Neurosci 2010;28[2]:157.) They hypothesized that providing earlier auditory experience to the developing brain affords development of cognitive mechanisms that are known precursors to language learning, such as audiovisual integration. Clearly more research is needed to test these hypotheses. It would have significant clinical, familial, societal, educational, and financial implications if research determined that children implanted under 13 months demonstrate age appropriate language outcomes by just 2 years postactivation.
Given the known benefits of cochlear implantation for children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, a thorough revision of FDA-labeled indications for pediatric implant candidacy is well overdue. It is likely that criteria in the near future will include children as young as 9 months, perhaps even younger. A child under 12 months who is healthy enough and adequately prepared to undergo surgery has no major risks for cochlear implantation. The potential benefits associated with early implantation and recommended early intervention may be the key to closing the gap permanently between children with cochlear implants and their normal hearing peers for speech, language, and academic outcomes.
(Dr. Gifford is the director of the cochlear implant program and an associate director of pediatric audiology at the Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center and an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, all in Nashville. Her NIH-funded research focuses on electric and acoustic hearing, speech perception, spatial hearing with cochlear implants, and preimplant prediction of postoperative outcomes.)"
*Here is my official disclaimer. I am linking back to the original article so as not to infringe on any copyrights. This article appeared on The Hearing Journal's website.*
August 30, 2012
Boys Town Activates its 500th Implant!
What an exciting milestone! Boys Town activated its 500th cochlear implant this week. Congratulations, BTNRH!
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120829/LIVEWELL01/120829652/0
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120829/LIVEWELL01/120829652/0
June 21, 2012
Interesting Interview About ClearVoice
We are so excited about this programming and what it will someday do for Audrena! Here is an interview that was posted on Audiology Online about ClearVoice with Tracey Kruger, VP of Marketing at Advanced Bionics.
http://www.audiologyonline.com/interview/interview_detail.asp?interview_id=634
I have read many great firsthand experiences from CI users with ClearVoice, so the benefits are really there. It's not just a marketing scheme.
http://www.audiologyonline.com/interview/interview_detail.asp?interview_id=634
I have read many great firsthand experiences from CI users with ClearVoice, so the benefits are really there. It's not just a marketing scheme.
May 23, 2012
Deaf Baseball Player Aims for Major Leagues
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11813169-deaf-baseball-player-aims-for-major-leagues
A friend pointed this news piece out to me. You really need to watch the video and read the article, I think. First of all, I think this kid is awesome. A star student who has set his sights on the major leagues, Austin has ambition for sure!
Now here is my critique. The video piece does a great job of showing off the implant. What it doesn't do is explain anything about it. It doesn't even call it what it is--a cochlear implant. And the written article? Don't get me started. The written article refers to it as an "external hearing device" and then a "hearing aid." While both descriptions are probably technically accurate, they're not exactly the correct terms. A hearing aid is different than a cochlear implant. Why not call it what it is, a cochlear implant? I was a mass communication major for awhile in college. I know that broadcast media has time limits, and printed media has length limits of its own. However, I think they could have still squeezed in a brief sentence describing what a cochlear implant is, and they certainly could have called it by its name. How would it have taken away from the focus of the article to just educate the public a tiny bit about the cochlear implant that helps Austin hear?
A friend pointed this news piece out to me. You really need to watch the video and read the article, I think. First of all, I think this kid is awesome. A star student who has set his sights on the major leagues, Austin has ambition for sure!
Now here is my critique. The video piece does a great job of showing off the implant. What it doesn't do is explain anything about it. It doesn't even call it what it is--a cochlear implant. And the written article? Don't get me started. The written article refers to it as an "external hearing device" and then a "hearing aid." While both descriptions are probably technically accurate, they're not exactly the correct terms. A hearing aid is different than a cochlear implant. Why not call it what it is, a cochlear implant? I was a mass communication major for awhile in college. I know that broadcast media has time limits, and printed media has length limits of its own. However, I think they could have still squeezed in a brief sentence describing what a cochlear implant is, and they certainly could have called it by its name. How would it have taken away from the focus of the article to just educate the public a tiny bit about the cochlear implant that helps Austin hear?
May 3, 2012
Parents Magazine Article About Cochlear Implants
Here is a good, informative 3 page article from Parents Magazine about cochlear implants. (You might have to click to continue past a subscription offer to get from page to page.) It explains how they work and touches on the decision that parents must make whether to raise their deaf child with or without cochlear implants.
http://www.parents.com/toddlers-preschoolers/health/ears/toddler-gets-cochlear-implants/
http://www.parents.com/toddlers-preschoolers/health/ears/toddler-gets-cochlear-implants/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)