Sánchez-Toral KJ

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 87-95
PDF size: 171.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Cochlear implant technology is reaching-up a currently increasing population of children with different degrees and types of auditory prelinguistic access. Daily clinical practice must provide optimal rehabilitatory resources to furnish a wide variety of patients’ requirements before and after the implant. The use of sign language as a visual means to convey and develop language, has been controversial far before the common use of cochlear implants. However, true utility of sign language has been stressed by recent available published evidence, which involves patients with cochlear implants, as it promotes linguistic, cognitive, and spoken development. According to published evidence; to improve the education for deaf children with cochlear implants, means to incorporate the already acquired knowledge regarding the early use of sign language and the benefits of the biotechnology well known for its posibilities and its limitations. The purpose of using both, cochlear implants as well as sign language, is to increase the range of strategies available and provide all the possible means to reach a higher quality of life rather than substracting opportunities.

REFERENCES

1. Szagun G. Desarrollo del lenguaje en niños con implante coclear. Folleto informativo. Oldenburg, Alemania: Universidad Carl-von-Ossietzky; 2006.

2. Virole B. Los implantes cocleares en el niño y la utilización temprana de la lengua de señas. Coherencia fundacional [Internet]. 2002. Disponible en: http://virole.pagesperso-orange.fr/COCLEARES.pdf

3. Nussbaum D, Scott S. Children with cochlear implants: where does sign language fit in? Washington D.C.: Cochlear Implant Education Center Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University; 2004. Disponible en:: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/children-with-cochlear-implants-where-1092

4. Cummins J. The relationship between American sign language proficiency and english academic development: a review of the research. In: Challenges, Opportunities, and Choices in Educating Minority Group Students. Washington, D.C.: Hamar University College Norway; 2006.

5. McConkey A. How does total communication affect cochlear implant performance in children? In: 4th CFOS International Conference: The impact of scientific advances on the education of deaf children. Paris, France: 2002. Disponible en:: http://www.acfos.org/publication/ourarticles/pdf/acfos4/robbins_acfos4.pdf

6. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey A, Uhler K. Speech piggybacks onto sign: Fast-mapping from sign to speech. In: Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs. Boulder, Colorado, EUA: 2008.

7. Durkel J. Cochlear implants. See/Hear [Internet]. 2004; 9 (1): 21-23. Disponible en:: http://www.tsbvi.edu/seehear/winter04/winter04.pdf

8. McConkey A. Oral Communication increases the probability of high outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Loud & Clear. 2006; 2 (1): 1-6.

9. Baker S. Advantages of early visual language. In: Harmon K (ed.). Visual language & visual learning; Research brief. 2011; 2: 1-6. Disponible en:: http://vl2.gallaudet.edu/assets/section7/document104.pdf

10. Moeller MP. Use of Sign with children who have cochlear implants: a diverse set of approaches. Loud & Clear. 2006; 2 (1): 6-12.

11. Hidalgo M. Aportes de la lengua de señas como facilitador de significación lingüística en adolescentes sordos que recibieron implante coclear. En: II Congreso Internacional con sede en Buenos Aires-IV Congreso Latinoamericano-V Congreso Nacional de Salud Mental y Sordera: Intersubjetividad y Vínculos. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires; 2010. Disponible en: http://www.cultura-sorda.eu/resources/Hidalgo_Neira_Aportes_L_S_facilitador_significacion_linguistica_adolescentes_sordos_implante_coclear_2010.pdf

12. Gárate M. Educating children with cochlear implants in an ASL/English bilingual classroom. In: Paludneviciene R, Leigh I (eds.). Cochlear implants. Evolving perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press; 2011.

13. Skowronek D. Critical review: Is it beneficial for children awaiting a cochlear implant to be taught sign language prior to implantation? University of Western Ontario: School of Communication Sciences and Disorders; 2011. Disponible en: http://publish.uwo.ca/~emacphe3/CSD9761/EBP2011/Skowronek.pdf

14. Gobierno de España. Estrategias, recursos y conocimientos para poner en práctica con alumnos sordos, y/o con discapacidad auditiva: guía para profesores. Agrupación de personas sordas de Zaragoza y Aragón. 2011. Disponible en: http://sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO25200/Guia_Orientativa_para_profesores.pdf

15. Cushner D. Six factors that impact the development of linguistic competence and the supporting evidence. In: EHDI early hearing detection and intervention. Washington D.C., EUA. Available in: http://ehdimeeting.org/2012/Users/Uploads/Handout_541DebraCushner.pdf

16. Nussbaum D. Implantes cocleares: recorriendo un bosque de información… un árbol por vez. Washington D.C.: Cochlear Implant Education Center Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University; 2003. Disponible en: http://www.gallaudet.edu/Documents/Clerc/CI-S.pdf