Life with Cochlear Implants - Lab Report Example

 Life with Cochlear Implants The innovation of cochlear implantation in medicine has become widely accepted by society. Previous studies of the surgery have proved its effectiveness and have shown the benefits reaped by deaf patients, thus gaining popularity and setting a different view of how the disability is regarded. With cochlear implant, deaf children are also able to communicate through talking instead of merely using signs. Advantages of these implants not achieved by any other hearing devices are continually being investigated upon by experts in order to somehow restore the optimum hearing possible of deaf individuals. Brief Background of Cochlear Implants Through surgery, the cochlear implant provides sounds to deaf individuals. It consists of a microphone, which gathers sounds in the environment; speech processor, which refines the picked-up sounds; a transmitter and receiver, which converts signals from the speech processor into electrical impulses; and an electrode array, which gathers the impulses and distributes them in various areas of the auditory nerve (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [NIDCD]). Compared to hearing aids that merely amplify sounds, cochlear implants stimulate the auditory nerve then submit these impulses to the brain for interpretation (NIDCD). Through this mechanism, the device somehow mimics the normal physiology of the human hearing process. Successful Implants and Hearing The PBS video Every Sound is a Present shows how two children, Kelly and Timmy, are successful examples of cochlear implantation. Kelly, a seven-year old girl, became deaf when she was two because of an ear infection that destroyed the tiny hairs in the inner ear which stimulate the auditory nerve. Kelly’s excitement in getting a cochlear implant is evident in the video, as she states that she “would love to hear more” and that she would prefer talking than sign language. Weeks after the surgery we can see in the video how the device helped her hear sounds in the room and the gush of the river. The case of six year-old Timmy is different in some ways. He had cochlear implant when he was still two years old, his deafness caused by meningitis at nine months old. For four years Timmy has been undergoing routine check-ups and therapy sessions to check the patency of the device, and monitor his progress in speech and hearing. As Neault explains, the “sounds made when whispering,” like /s/, /f/, unvoiced /th/, /p/, /t/, /k/, are the “trickiest to pick up” and deaf children using hearing aids cannot distinguish these sounds compared to those with implants. She also presents that with “early diagnosis of hearing loss, early introduction of language, early implantation, and proper therapy and nurturing of language,” there are increased favorable outcomes for the child in speech perception and speech production. In addition, Timmy’s mother tells us that with cochlear implant, he is given confidence and when he sees that he is quite “different,” he will be able to look back to his past. The sense of hearing to deaf children, made possible by cochlear implants, is likened to a gift, not merely an ability one is born with. As cited in previous studies, the success of cochlear implants are connected to several factors: length of deafness, length of implant usage, age during implantation, number of electrodes utilized, and educational environment (Pyman et al. 57). Pyman et al. present that children with presence of motor and/or cognitive delays prior to implantation would “obtain some useful benefits from cochlear implantation” (61). Two of these pointed advantages are the ability to identify “words from a closed-set without lip-reading” and developed “open-set speech perception with the aid of lipreading” (61). In a study comparing language and literacy outcomes of normal-hearing children and cochlear implant users, Spencer, Barker, and Tomblin conclude that the performance of the latter group was positive with the former. Even if the results of the cochlear implant users were lower as equated to the normal-hearing children, “the scores essentially fell within the normal range” (243). They also point out that the speech perception of cochlear implant users are less demanding as compared to speech production or expression, emphasizing that there is increasing language competence in children with these devices (244). In a longitudinal scientific undertaking conducted by Calmels et al., they evaluate the speech perception and speech intelligibility of children who had their implants before ten years of age up to five years post-implantation. They emphasize that speech perception is “considered the single most important primary outcome measure of cochlear implantation” (347). Results gathered claim that in five years, the median percentage of closed-word perception was 95%, and also show that the children possess the ability to attain open-set perception after implantation (349). Furthermore, they compare their speech intelligibility results to that of O’Donoghue et al., and obtained the same results where intelligibility started to develop approximately three years post-implantation and continuously progressed during the length of the study. Conclusion Cochlear implantation has benefited both deaf adults and children, as the device allows them to hear their environment in a manner never before previously experienced. Compared to the amplifying function of conventional hearing aids, implants give its users the ability to discriminate one sound from the other. The evidences portrayed with regard to the success of cochlear implantation contribute to the rise of the population opting the surgery. As can be shown in the video cited, there is value in hearing and verbal expression that is important to the deaf children. The device is perceived to build up self-esteem, especially among children, and allows them to function as normal as possible. Supporting researches also prove that indeed, cochlear implants improve speech perception and speech production in deaf individuals. Putting into consideration factors like age of implantation, length of implant use, educational support, introduction of language, adequate therapy, et cetera, there is increased albeit gradual progress in the individual that allows him or her to function as capable as a normal-hearing individual could. To individuals with auditory impairments, the sense of hearing is not merely a passive inborn function, but is likened to a treasured gift, enabling them to appreciate their environment better. Works Cited Calmels, Marie-Noelle, Issam Saliba, Georges Wanna, Nadine Cochard, Judith Fillaux, Olivier Deguine, and Bernard Fraysse. “Speech Perception and Speech Intelligibility in Children After Cochlear Implantation.” International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 68 (2004): 347-351. Print. “Cochlear Implants.” National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. National Institutes of Health, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. . “Every Sound is a Present.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 13 Sept. 2001. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. . Pyman, Brian, Peter Blamey, Peter Lacey, Graeme Clark, and Richard Dowell. “The Development of Speech Perception in Children Using Cochlear Implants: Effects of Etiologic Factors and Delayed Milestones.” American Journal of Otology 21.1 (2000): 57-61. Print. Spencer, Linda J., Brittan A. Barker, and J. Bruce Tomblin. “Exploring the Language and Literacy Outcomes of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users.” Ear & Hearing 24 (2003): 236-247. Print. Read More