Vernon M, Alles C D
Springfield Hospital Center, Sykesville, Maryland.
Am Ann Deaf. 1994 Dec;139(5):485-92. doi: 10.1353/aad.1994.0008.
Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration with deaf adults and prelingually deafened children above age two, the success of cochlear implants lacks supporting independent evaluative documentation. Allen et al (1993) compared hearing thresholds of profoundly deaf children with and without implants. Children with implants had an unaided threshold of 109.8 dB, which improved with the implant to 56.0 dB. Children without implants had an unaided threshold of 105.1 dB, which improved to 61.8 dB with conventional aids. Pure tone thresholds of 56.0 dB or 61.8 dB does not mean a child can process speech at that level. Lennenberg's critical stage theory (1967) represents the theoretical rationale for early implanting of prelingually deaf children. The flaw in this rationale rests on the fact that prelingually deaf children would not be acquiring English as a second language, even if the implant gave them adequate perception of English. There are strong, legitimate reasons to question the experimental implantation of prelingually deaf children, just as there are factual reasons to support it that should be considered by parents along with the possible benefits.
经美国食品药品监督管理局批准，可用于成年聋人和两岁以上语前聋儿童，然而人工耳蜗植入的成功缺乏独立评估文件的支持。艾伦等人（1993年）比较了植入和未植入人工耳蜗的重度聋儿的听力阈值。植入人工耳蜗的儿童未使用辅助设备时的阈值为109.8分贝，植入后改善到56.0分贝。未植入人工耳蜗的儿童未使用辅助设备时的阈值为105.1分贝，使用传统助听器后改善到61.8分贝。56.0分贝或61.8分贝的纯音阈值并不意味着孩子能够在该水平上处理语音。伦内伯格的关键期理论（1967年）是语前聋儿童早期植入人工耳蜗的理论依据。这一理论依据的缺陷在于，即使植入物能让语前聋儿童对英语有足够的感知，他们也不会将英语作为第二语言来学习。质疑语前聋儿童进行实验性植入有充分合理的理由，就如同有事实依据支持植入一样，家长在考虑可能的益处时也应将这些因素考虑在内。
