Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale!bunker!wtm
From: ljr@brownvm.brown.edu (Loretta Reiss)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: NAD Position Paper
Message-ID: <14657@handicap.news>
Date: 10 Apr 91 05:08:47 GMT
References: <18496@bunker.isc-br.com>
Sender: news@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: ljr@brownvm.brown.edu (Loretta Reiss)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 32
Approved: wtm@hcap.fidonet.org
Fidonet: Silent Talk Conference

Index Number: 14657

I am very interested in cochlear implants.  I know there are some
adult users in this newsgroup and I enjoy reading their posts.
However, I think the NAD position paper made some valid points.
When I went to a lecture by a man from the implant team in NYC last
year, he told us that the number of "non-users" (children who were
implanted, but do not use the device after a few months) is high.
Also, the average user functions like a severely H.I.  individual.
This is not surprising when you consider the small number of
electrodes and what synthetic speech sounds like with that number
of channels.  The "superstar" users are generally people who had
good oral skills beforehand.  There are complications sometimes and
a significant number of the "superstar" users had to have repeated
surgery because parts of the implant failed.

I hope some day they will be able to make the electrodes smaller
and solve some of the other problems, but on the average, all you
can expect from this now is that your child will function like a
severely H.I. person rather than a profoundly H.I. one with the
CI.  You can get the same results with the tactile aids.  So, if it
were my choice, I would get my child one of those and let him/her
wait for the CI with 88 channels and dolby stereo (smile).  Some of
the kids who have these implants now may not be candidates for a
better one in the future because of electro-chemical damage from
the present ones.

If the tactile aids work as well, why aren't more places pushing
them?  I think it is because it is easier to do research on them
without forcing someone to buy them.

--Loretta Reiss (ljr@brownvm.brown.edu or spr@cs.brown.edu)