At 9 months my daughter was starting to call me from her crib.
She began to babble and would say “Bye Bye” to me
when I left her at daycare. At 10.5 months she had a high fever
and ear infections that we had a hard time getting rid of. When
she was 14 months, the dog barked right behind her and she wasn’t
startled, I knew something was wrong. We contacted the pediatrician
who immediately referred us to an ENT. The ENT felt her lack
of hearing was a result of fluid she had in her ears. After
we finished the medication and went in for a follow-up, the
ENT felt we should give it more time. “After all, she
doesn’t look like a deaf person” was his statement.
I knew then that I had to fight to have testing done. Our pediatrician
sent us for an ABR at 18 months, which confirmed our suspicions.
She had a severe to profound loss in both ears. We immediately
fitted her for hearing aids and enrolled her at the local school
for the deaf.
My daughter rapidly began to learn signs, but was verbalizing
less and less. I began to do research on hearing loss and
available methods of communication. I read about Cued Speech
in Choices in Deafness and was asking everyone about it. The
comments that were coming back to me included, “It doesn’t
work. No one uses it. She will never fit in with her deaf
peers.” At that point I wanted her to fit into our family
and use the same system of language that we were all using.
Our representative at Early Intervention informed us of a
center who just started offering Cued Speech. We checked it
out and met with Amy Hurowitz, a deaf adult who had been raised
on Cued Speech. We felt our eyes twinkle again for the first
time in almost a year. The philosophy of Cued Speech matched
our needs and Amy was so bright and understood everything!
We wanted the same thing for our daughter.
|
 |
|
Within a few months of using Cued Speech, Stephanie began
verbalizing again. Her receptive language was increasing at
a phenomenal rate. She understood that there were different
brands of cereal and candy. She understood that people had
first, middle, and last names. We could virtually say anything
to her and she would comprehend it. I say virtually because
it took me a few months to become somewhat fluent in the system.
We learned the system in one evening session per week for
12 weeks. Since I worked, I could not practice the system
until the evening when I used it with Stephanie. After attending
a Cued Speech camp, it just clicked and I was able to keep
up and interpret short conversations for her. Stephanie continued
to grow in her receptive language, but her expressive was
not coming along, partly due to the fact that she continued
to lose hearing with each ear infection. We had an ear infection
every two months even with multiple PTE tubes.
We attended the Helen Beebee Center and saw many children
with her type of loss that were speaking as a result of the
auditory-verbal therapy that they were receiving. We also
saw several children who had received cochlear implants and
were doing remarkably well. We knew then that if we wanted
our daughter to speak, we needed to investigate the cochlear
implant (CI). At the time we were beginning to investigate
the CI, most children were being implanted by the age of two.
The clinic we visited was concerned that Stephanie was almost
five years old. At this point her hearing was classified as
a left corner audiogram starting at around 90-95db and quickly
dropping off between 250hz and 500hz.
The clinic we chose for Stephanie’s evaluation conducted
extensive testing for about two days. The results showed that
her receptive language (4.5) scores were much more advanced
than her expressive (3.0). An excerpt from the initial speech
and language testing shows how much impact Cued Speech had
on Stephanie’s early years.
“Stephanie indicated age level understanding of vocabulary
and only slightly delayed comprehension of grammar and syntax.
She was acutely tuned in to language and made language associations
without prompting throughout the evaluation. Her parents conversed
with her freely and were excellent language stimulators. Stephanie
combined words in phrases and used articles, pronouns, simple
verb and noun modifiers, negatives and the present and present
progressives. Early concepts such as ‘under’,
‘over’, ‘out’, ‘in’, ‘longest’,
and ‘smallest’ were understood.”
The amount of receptive language along with some of the key
markers of the English language were key factors in helping
the clinic decide whether she would be a candidate for the
CI.
For the first year of the implant, we used Cued Speech all the time. Any sounds, words, concepts, everything was cued to her. At her 6-month evaluation she was doing O.K. At her one-year evaluation, Stephanie's scores were amazing.
| |
Hearing Aid
(Pre-implant) |
1-year post implant |
|
PBK-50 Word Test
(Monitored live voice,
auditory only, and open
set conditions) |
0% words correct |
60% words correct
with 79% phonemes correct |
|
Mr. Potato Head Test
(Monitored live voice,
open set conditions) |
Hearing Aid
(Pre-implant) |
1-year post implant |
| |
| (Auditory only) |
10% key words
10% sentences |
25% key words
30% sentences |
| |
| (Adding cues) |
65% key words
70% sentences |
Not tested |
|
The “Mr. Potato Head Test” showed that by adding
Cued Speech her comprehension scores increased tremendously.
The personnel at the clinic felt her scores were a result of
using Cued Speech and internalizing the language she was being
fed along with the new auditory input she was getting from her
implant.
Stephanie was mainstreamed in first grade at a parochial
school and her grades average between a B+ and A. At the end
of second grade, the Basic Reading Inventory, 6th edition
(Jerry L. Johns) reading test was performed on her and her
comprehension level was at 4.5 grade level and her ability
to decode was 7.1 grade level. She reads books voraciously.
We take a weekly trip to the library and she reads about 10
third to fourth grade level books per week. In school, she
has a full time transliterator, Teacher of the Deaf, and SLP
services. She has learned some sign language from friends
or providers. It is our intention to have her learn sign language
at a later age so that she can communicate with deaf peers.
Stephanie is currently taking TaeKwonDo classes where she
must learn the names of her forms, kicks and other exercises
in Japanese. She must also be able to count, greet the instructors
and thank them in Japanese. She was able to do this because
I was able to cue these words to her and she learned them
over time.
I also come from an Italian family and speak it fluently.
I have taught Stephanie a few words in Italian through the
use of Cued Speech.
Cued Speech is still part of our lives today. Although we
do not use it for every word, we do use it in noisy environments,
when she’s swimming, for a new concept, to help her
pronounce a new word, or when she is extremely fatigued from
listening all day. Just like the cochlear implant, it is a
tool that has helped Stephanie achieve many successes, and
it will continue helping her.
|