Response to Pool and Rose I agree with Pool and Rose’s concern about overstating the performance of prelingually deafened children using cochlear implants. I provided references (Fryauf-Bertschy, Tyler, Kelsay & Gantz, 1992; Osberger et al., 1991; Tyler, 1993a) of critical reviews of this important issue in Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Culture (Tyler, 1993b). I ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   November 01, 1993
Response to Pool and Rose
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Richard S. Tyler
    Iowa City, IA
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   November 01, 1993
Response to Pool and Rose
American Journal of Audiology, November 1993, Vol. 2, 69-a-70. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0203.69b
 
American Journal of Audiology, November 1993, Vol. 2, 69-a-70. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0203.69b
I agree with Pool and Rose’s concern about overstating the performance of prelingually deafened children using cochlear implants. I provided references (Fryauf-Bertschy, Tyler, Kelsay & Gantz, 1992; Osberger et al., 1991; Tyler, 1993a) of critical reviews of this important issue in Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Culture (Tyler, 1993b). I also stated that in some prelingually deaf children “speech perception improvements may be very limited, and the impact that these minimal benefits in perception have on social and educational development is uncertain.” At the University of Iowa we are currently investigating the effect of age of implantation on prelingually deaf children in a grant funded by the National Institutes of Health.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access