Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

An approach designed to fail deaf children and their parents and how to change it

Harm Reduction Journal volume 21, Article number: 132 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The matter of raising and educating deaf children has been caught up in percepts of development that are persistently inaccurate and at odds with scientific research. These percepts have negatively impacted the health and quality of life of deaf children and deaf people in general. The all too prevalent advice is to raise the child strictly orally and wait to see what happens. Only when the child is seriously behind is a completely accessible language – a sign language – introduced, and that is far too late for protecting cognitive health. The medical profession, along with others, needs to offer parents better advice and better supports so that neither the children nor their parents wait and watch as the oral-only method fails. All must take responsible action to assure an approach that succeeds.

Background: updating what we know

A little over a decade ago in this journal, Humphries and colleagues [1] outlined the harms done to deaf children (“deaf children” is used inclusively here to cover children with a wide range of hearing loss, including those who are hard of hearing) by the practice of raising them orally with zero tolerance to the use of other evidence-based approaches – specifically, the introduction of sign language as soon as deafness is detected. We catalogued medical acts that have harmed the individual and society, including but not limited to:

  • failure to inform (we made and justified the claim that parents are often not fully informed concerning language development in deaf children at the time when they are asked to make decisions that affect their children’s cognitive health, offering examples in a 2011 book [2], thus violating the legal principle known as the informed consent doctrine),

  • misinforming and coercing behavior counter to the child’s welfare (we argued that incorrect information and coercive advice are often given to parents [3], among many),

  • abnegation of trust (we argued that parents who follow misinformed medical advice and find their children falling behind hearing peers, experience a delay in facing their children’s needs [4], and often lose their faith in the very professionals who are supposed to be guiding them),

  • as well as exposing the child to the many risks of overdependency on cochlear implant (CI) surgery (see [5,6,7,8], among many).

We placed the responsibility for these harms with medical and health-science professionals.

In the present article we give a brief history of how the zero-tolerance approach came about and why it should not be allowed to continue. Following that, we bring the reader up to date on relevant issues since the 2012 article. In one section we offer an update of the harms of a narrow deficit-centered approach. In another we give an update of the risks of surgery. Then we outline some of the major benefits of signing to deaf children, with or without a CI. Reinforcing the 2012 article, the present work ends with an overview of what changes need to be implemented at this stage.

A history of harms: an approach designed to fail

Throughout history, in almost every part of the globe, models of deaf children’s needs regarding language and cognitive development have focused on hearing loss and the necessity of speech; from the moment hearing loss is identified, a quest ensues to find ways to help deaf children overcome inherent disadvantages accessing and processing spoken language [9]. In the modern world, replacing hearing, replacing the auditory pathway to language, too often becomes the sole goal [10]. Deaf children are faced with trying to develop spoken language with critically inaccessible input or degraded exposure to such input [11]. This approach has many limitations; listening technologies leave wide and unpredictable variation in their effectiveness, a child’s acoustic channel is subject to varying degrees of functionality, and relying on the child’s access to linguistic input via speechreading (lipreading) is highly risky [12].

The mentality that understands acquisition and development of language for deaf children solely as a search for restorative practices stems from a deeply held belief that the state of being without hearing and speech is catastrophic [13,14,15], a belief that persists today [16]. That belief is responsible for a long and persistent history of mistreatment of deaf children from birth to adulthood; in the end, only a small minority of deaf children acquire spoken language naturally with or without cochlear implants (CIs), as outlined in a study in 2013 [17]. Indications that the results of the 2013 study still hold are a decade of studies since that try to establish ever-increasing improvement in CIs, and the lack of studies during this decade that provide evidence that spoken language acquisition by deaf children with CIs proceeds as well and as naturally as acquisition among typically hearing peers.

Even in countries with a better understanding that sign languages are natural human languages and that delayed acquisition of language has detrimental effects on the architecture of the brain, most deaf children are raised in an oral-only environment, often with a CI (or bilateral implants) [18]. Many experience inadequate exposure to language, whether a spoken language or a sign language [19]. Parents, medical professionals, hearing and speech specialists, and others usually insist that children – given time, technology, and certain hearing and speech interventions – will develop necessary language and cognitive abilities [20]. It is only when the child demonstrates significant struggle in achieving developmental milestones that sign language is introduced (if ever), and remediation is attempted [21]. Remediation even for hearing children that have been left behind is rarely successful; instead, better educational practice is required to eliminate the need for it [22, 23]. The same should hold true for deaf children.

Even in countries where medical professionals and hearing-and-speech specialists understand that there is great cognitive risk to the deaf child who does not have sufficient input and exposure to language, these professionals and specialists often move forward with an oral-only approach [24]. They move forward despite a lack of strong evidence that this approach is successful. Only when it becomes obvious that this approach has failed is sign language considered [16].

The approach of waiting to see positive results has been used with dyslexic children, and just as inadequately [25,26,27]. The difficulty of detecting dyslexia before a child has reached a certain level in grade school is given as the main rationale for why detection does not occur early, when it would be most effective [28, 29]. But recent developments in MRI studies in infants have changed possibilities for recognition of need and, hence, early support [30, 31].

The situation for deaf children, however, contrasts sharply with that of dyslexic children. The Centers for Disease Control’s Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Guidance Manual [32] recommends hearing screening of all babies no later than one month of age, and in most cases newborns are screened before leaving the hospital. Hence, families and the medical profession know that a child is deaf soon after birth. There is then no excuse for delaying supports with deaf children. A proactive approach of raising the child with sign language is both feasible and effective. Sign language is like a cognitive seat belt, protecting the child as a whole person [33]. Auditory deprivation in the early months of life, if not accompanied by sign language, is not just auditory deprivation but also deprivation of language – and language is essential for nourishing the human brain and partaking of humanity [34].

Given all this, why does the oral-only approach remain the dominant one? Delcenserie, Genesee, and Champoux [35] sum up the resistance to visual language acquisition for deaf children and the evidence against this resistance in this way:

Perhaps the most documented and empirical argument, the visual takeover hypothesis, suggests that exposure to sign language in deaf children may impair perceptual performance following cochlear implantation (e.g., Campbell et al., 2014). In other words, exposure to a visual mode of communication during the period of deafness would lead to auditory-to-visual plasticity, which can hinder the analysis of the auditory signal following implantation and lead to specific deficits in perceptual processes, including auditory frequency discrimination, auditory speech intelligibility, and speech recognition (Champoux et al., 2009; Giraud & Lee, 2007; Kral & Sharma, 2012; Turgeon et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2018). However, recent findings by Mushtaq et al. (2020) show that there is a positive association between cross-modal plasticity and the speech perception outcomes of deaf cochlear implant users. In addition, increasingly, research suggests a lack of robust evidence to conclude that exposure to a visual language directly causes poor spoken language outcomes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016) or negatively influences cross-modal plasticity (Lyness et al., 2013). Overall, the case for the visual takeover hypothesis does not seem sufficient to deprive deaf children of early exposure to sign language (see Pontecorvo et al., 2023, for more discussion of this issue).

We agree: the visual takeover hypothesis – that is, the claim that introducing a visual language will impair the implanted child’s acquisition of speech – has deterred the medical profession from advising families to introduce a sign language to their children.

Decades of research on the normalizing effects of sign language acquisition from an early age, however, refute the visual takeover hypothesis. Indeed, many studies have shown that signing does not hinder acquisition of a spoken language [36,37,38]; rather, the visual input of sign language supports all language learning and should be encouraged rather than discouraged [39]. Yet there remains adherence to the visual takeover hypothesis due to inadequate and outdated training about language, cognitive development, and the life-long impact of early language deprivation [40].

To remedy the situation, parents need better advice and better supports [41], and the medical profession globally needs to declare that all deaf children should receive a sign language as a health matter [42]. In this way, we can replace the process of watching so many deaf children fall further behind in language, learning, and social development with the process of assuring that our deaf children succeed.

The present narratives among professionals are so varying regarding the role of sign language in a deaf child’s language and cognitive development that they contribute to parents’ confusion and frustration. But parents are capable of more than they are given credit for when it comes to seeing what is happening with their child’s development trajectory; they are resourceful in finding ways to communicate with their children in spite of being told not to sign [43]. Many go ahead and learn a sign language so they can provide sign language input that is so beneficial to developing cognitive abilities and can create a rich socially nurturing world for their child [44,45,46,47,48,49]. Through sheer desire to do the right thing for their children, many educate themselves about sign language and use it at home [45], seeing the advantages even when the professionals do not always see them. They often come to the independent conclusion that shared reading activities with their deaf children in a sign language are an excellent way to promote language learning for the whole family and especially for their deaf children [48], a finding that research underscores [50,51,52,53,54,55]. In sum, as the wisdom of deaf people with lived experience confirms [56], parents of deaf children need an approach that does not wait to see if failure will ensue in an environment of insufficient linguistic input.

Harms to the individual: linguistic deprivation

Newer research since that 2012 publication confirms and emphasizes that the failure to recommend that a deaf newborn be given access to sign language as soon as deafness is detected puts the child at risk of linguistic deprivation [19], which is implicated in wide-spread effects on brain development, and which can be permanent and, importantly, are preventable [57, 58]. Studies of children with hearing aids who are not taught to sign are far fewer than studies of children with CI who are not taught to sign – and there are so many variables at play, where different studies consider different variables, that comparing studies of the two groups is so complex as to presently be infeasible, if not invalid [59]. What we can confirm is that effects on brain development are evident in many deaf children with and without cochlear implants who are not taught to sign, and these effects correlate positively with defective or delayed development of memory organization [60], working memory [61], executive functions [62, 63], sequential processing [64], concept formation [65], numeracy abilities [66], statistical learning [67], and other neurocognitive skills [68]. Additionally, deaf children who are not taught to sign experience a range of difficulties when learning to read and write [69].

Linguistic deprivation remains an epidemic among deaf people. Though many succeed despite such deprivation, many more do not and end up presenting atypical or dysfluent sign language [70]. Linguistic deprivation and its effects continue to correlate with poverty, unemployment, or underemployment (where this claim is deduced from statistics on overall deaf poverty and employment, given the assumption that these figures are not based solely on prejudice regarding disability; see [71, 72]), involvement in criminal activity as victim or perpetrator [73], and poor life-long health outcomes [74]. The psycho-social harms of linguistic deprivation are devastating, but even delayed language access has serious harms [75,76,77]. This list leaves no doubt that sign language is a health need for deaf children [78, 79], and for deaf people in general (see the position paper of the World Federation of the Deaf [80]).

Harms to the individual: CI surgery

There have been newer studies of CI surgery since our 2012 publication; here we report on a large and recent one by Parent and colleagues [81]. While we do not dispute its findings, we take issue with its conclusion.

Parent and colleagues’ study, of 5728 patients implanted in France between January 2012 and December 2016, found that CI surgery had a complication rate of 6.85%, which is far lower than the rate found in many other studies – a difference that the researchers go at lengths to account for. Further, the complication rate revealed little difference between adults and children, although complications rated “major” were significantly more common in the pediatric population than in the adult population. Some complications were decidedly easy to assess: the risk of device failure is higher in the pediatric population (1.16% versus 0.03%), where traumatic failures occur mostly in children [82, 83].

Parent and colleagues’ study does not report how judgments of certain other postoperative complications were assessed among pediatric patients. For example, the study reports that pediatric complications were mostly infections (18%) and device breakdowns (17%), while the major complications reported in adults were dizziness and scarring. Given that the complication rates in pediatric patients overall were 7.32% for children implanted before the age of 1 and 7.52% for children implanted between the ages of 1 and 2, we wonder how it was assessed whether children that young felt dizzy and were even aware of whether or not they had scarring. The authors themselves note that the symptoms of cochleo-vestibular complications are “difficult to detect” among children (and see [84]), suggesting a high probability of undercounted pediatric complications.

Parent and colleagues conclude, “Cochlear implantation is a safe technique with a low incidence of complications. The absence of increased risk in patients at the extremes of the age spectrum justifies offering this solution to all, without age limitation” [81].

This conclusion makes a blanket recommendation of CI without considering the age of implanted subjects. We consider that the evidence is not strong enough for this conclusion. We have asked elsewhere that regulatory agencies review guidance to address such conclusions. In the United States, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary authority to regulate medical devices and the authority that the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders explicitly relies on [85], but it has shown insufficient oversight with regard to patient safety when approving many devices [86]. In particular, the FDA has not regulated CIs to the same extent as other medical devices [87]. In Europe the regulatory framework for medical devices was originally through the Confromité européenne (CE) marketing process and the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC [88, 89], where, again, regulation of CIs was problematic (e.g [90]). Since 2017, however, Regulation MDR (EU) 2017/745 [91] has taken over, and there have been a few improvements to the devices (such as resolving problems of magnet displacement; [92]), but postoperative complications still include an infection rate of 6.5% [93].

These complication rates are high by anyone’s standards. If we are going to ask deaf children to run these risks, we should at least ensure their access to sign language, as denying them this access would compound risks of language deprivation and ensuing cognitive deficits.

To be clear, we have no issues with CIs when the risks and concerns outlined in our previous papers and this paper are addressed. Unfortunately, we continue to observe that claims of success are reported in ways that at best obfuscate issues and at worst misrepresent results (see, for example, Hall and colleagues’ [21] critique of Geers and colleagues [94]). We continue to see few studies of the benefits of CIs when the child is in a signing environment, but existing ones show the combination of CIs with sign language is more advantageous than CIs alone (see [24, 95,96,97], as well as citations in the next subsection pertinent to the points made there). Thus CIs should not be used as a reason for delaying or withholding exposure to sign language, yet those involved in CI production and surgery continue a general silence about sign language benefits or advise parents outright that sign language will not benefit CI patients.

Advantages of early sign language acquisition/learning

Additional research since our 2012 article has confirmed that the positive influences of signing from birth are pervasive and have widespread effects on brain development. In fact, deaf children who are early signers do not exhibit the cognitive harms discussed thus far with respect to memory organization [98], working memory [99], executive function [100, 101], sequential processing [98], language-based analogical reasoning [102], numeracy abilities [103], mathematical conceptualization [104,105,106,107], and statistical learning [108].

As for academic achievement, deaf children who have early access to sign language have been shown to use their knowledge of that language in learning to read the text of the ambient spoken language [109,110,111]. Signing skills are, likewise, among the strongest predictors of writing skills [112,113,114,115,116], even when the parents are hearing [117].

Parent signing at home with the child regardless of CI use is another significant factor in the educational success of deaf children [118, 119], particularly since it facilitates academic support. With the emphasis in many schools on inclusion in the classroom, an important contribution to the success of deaf children in that situation is the use of sign language interpreters for access, again regardless of CI use [120]. Thus, learning a sign language in the home before school is important because by the time the child is of school age, the ability to learn through an interpreter is critical. We cannot emphasize enough that parent-child bonding is most strongly established when sign communication in the home is used alongside the parents’ spoken language [121].

Overall, studies show that signing deaf children consistently outperform deaf children without sign exposure in academic settings [117, 122], and signing at home both aids academic performance and family bonding. As an additional benefit, outside the home and school, out in the social world, signing allows a deaf child to enter rich two-way communication encounters, which form the basis for making friends, exchanging information, making jokes, etc. – this is an enormous psycho-social benefit [123].

Conclusions: needed change

New evidence confirms the findings of Humphries and colleagues [1], yet, unfortunately, we see little evidence of change in practice since then. Instead, the present policy of wait and watch as deaf children fail persists. This policy is reminiscent of two recent studies in HRJ and a forthcoming book, which point out untenable practices and social injustice: “Come back when you’re infected: pharmacy access to sterile syringes in an Arizona Secret Shopper Study, 2023” [124]; “‘They make it too hard and too many hoops to jump’: system of organizational barriers to drug treatment during epidemic rates of opioid overdose” [125]; Designed to Fail: Why Racial Equity in School Funding Is So Hard to Achieve [126]. As Snodden [127] outlines (in a study involving Canada – where the situation is very much like in the United States and many other places) the pattern of systemic and professional negligence and non-recognition of deaf children’s sign language rights reveals an absence of linguistic and social justice for deaf children.

We need to act, and the actions we need to take are clear. We must create approaches that move us towards supportive practices for deaf children and their parents, approaches that build on the wisdom of those most closely involved, including deaf people with lived experience and their parents. Detailed description of such approaches are found in Humphries and colleagues [41] (and see [75] for recommendations on mentoring families; see also [128] for recommendations on mentoring deaf scholars). Here we list major factors that must be included in such approaches.

  • Updated and enriched knowledge regarding research on language and cognitive development and the harms of language deprivation in the professional development and training of those who advise parents of deaf children.

  • Immediate and early support for parents in decision making about their deaf child and paths forward that include and emphasize the need for visual language input from detection of deafness onward.

  • Immediate support for parents and their deaf child in learning a sign language at home and continued mentoring of deaf children throughout their education.

  • Continuous shared narrative across the relevant disciplines (medicine, health, education, social services) that reinforce the fact that early sign language exposure is essential to preventing the risk of insufficient linguistic input for language and cognitive development.

  • Protocols in all professions and disciplines that are inclusive of deaf people themselves in establishing ethical principles of practice that reflect and protect deaf people for the entire life cycle.

  • Diversifying all relevant professions with the addition of deaf people in these professions.

These six changes are commitments necessary for designing an approach that succeeds. Implementing these changes, and quickly, will help prevent harm to the health and wellbeing of deaf children and will advance us all toward a more just society.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, Rathmann C, et al. Language acquisition for deaf children: reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. HRJ. 2012;9:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bryan WV, Henderson G. Psychosocial aspects of disability. 4th edition. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher; 2011.

  3. Medwid DJ, Chapman Weston D. Kidfriendly parenting with deaf and hard of hearing children. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chute PM, Nevins ME. The parents’ guide to cochlear implants. Washington: Gallaudet University; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen NL, Roland JT. Complications of cochlear implant surgery. In: Waltzman S, Roland T, editors. Cochlear implants. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2006. p. 205–213.

  6. Borkowski G, Hildmann H, Stark T. Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation in young and very young children. In: Kubo T, Takahashi Y, Iwaki T, editors. Cochlear implants: an update. The Hague: Kugler; 2002. p. 223–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Steenerson RL, Cronin GW, Gary LB. Vertigo after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22:842–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Walker G. A conversation with Grace Walker: personal experiences with a cochlear implant. In: DeLuca D, Leigh IW, Lindgren KA, Napoli DJ, editors. Access: multiple avenues for deaf people. Washington: Gallaudet University; 2008. p. 140–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lane HL. The mask of benevolence: disabling the deaf community. New York: Knopf; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mauldin L. Made to hear: cochlear implants and raising deaf children. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamati TN, Pisoni DB, Moberly AC. Speech and language outcomes in adults and children with cochlear implants. Annu Rev Linguist. 2022;8:299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mogford K. Oral language acquisition in the prelinguistically deaf. In: Bishop D, Mogford K, editors. Language development in exceptional circumstances. London: Psychology; 2013. p. 110–31.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins P, Nash J. Understanding deafness through a sociological imagination. In Higgins P, Nash J, editors. The deaf community and the deaf population (Working Paper No. 3, Conference on the Sociology of Deafness). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1982. p. 2990347.

  14. Moores D. Educating the deaf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Quigley S, Kretschmer R. The education of deaf children. London: Arnold; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, Rathmann C, et al. Discourses of prejudice in the professions: the case of sign languages. J Med Ethics. 2017;43:9648–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krammer K. The benefits of sign language for deaf children with and without cochlear implant (s). Eur Sci J 2013:341–9.

  18. Hassanzadeh S. Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: comparative study. J Laryngol Otol. 2012;126(10):989–94. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/S0022215112001909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hall WC. What you don’t know can hurt you: the risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(5):961–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cruz I, Quittner AL, Marker C, DesJardin JL, CDaCI Investigative Team. Identification of effective strategies to promote language in deaf children with cochlear implants. Child Dev. 2013;84(2):543–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall ML, Hall WC, Caselli NK. Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Lang. 2019;39(4):367–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, Vaughn MG. Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: are there effects a decade later? J Educ Psychol. 2014;106(1):46–57. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/a0033663

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jimenez L, Sargrad S, Morales J, Thompson M. Remedial education: the cost of catching up. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress; 2016. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED586241

    Google Scholar 

  24. Murray JJ, Hall WC, Snoddon K. Education and health of children with hearing loss: the necessity of signed languages. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):711.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Al Otaiba S, Wagner RK, Miller B. Waiting to fail redux: understanding inadequate response to intervention. Learn Disabil Q. 2014;37(3):129–33. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0731948714525622. PMID: 25422530; PMCID: PMC4240019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Catts HW, Hogan TP, Dyslexia. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of diagnosis and treatment. TRLJ. 2021;2:6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Reynolds CR, Shaywitz SE. Response to intervention: ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychol Quart. 2009;24(2):130–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ozernov-Palchik O, Gaab N. Tackling the ‘dyslexia paradox’: reading brain and behavior for early markers of developmental dyslexia. WIREs Cogn Sci. 2016;7:156–76. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/wcs.1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, Cain P. Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educ Psychol Rev. 2016;28:551–76. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yu X, Zuk J, Perdue MV, Ozernov-Palchik O, Raney T, Beach SD, et al. Putative protective neural mechanisms in prereaders with a family history of dyslexia who subsequently develop typical reading skills. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020;41(10):2827–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Turesky TK, Vanderauwera J, Gaab N. Imaging the rapidly developing brain: current challenges for MRI studies in the first five years of life. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021;47:100893. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. EHDI guidance manual 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/guidancemanual/index.html

  33. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, Rathmann C, Smith S. Avoiding linguistic neglect of deaf children. Soc Service Rev. 2016;90(4):589–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sacks O. Seeing voices: a journey into the world of the deaf. New York: Harper Collins; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Delcenserie A, Genesee F, Champoux F. Exposure to sign language prior and after cochlear implantation increases language and cognitive skills in deaf children. Dev Sci 2024:e13481.

  36. Davidson K, Lillo-Martin DC, Chen Pichler D. Spoken English language development among native signing children with cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2014;19(2):238–50. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/deafed/ent045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lillo-Martin DC, Gale E, Chen Pichler D, Family ASL. An early start to equitable education for deaf children. Top Early Child Spec Educ. 2021. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/02711214211031307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pontecorvo E, Higgins M, Mora J, Lieberman AM, Pyers J, Caselli NK. Learning a sign language does not hinder acquisition of a spoken language. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2023:1–18.

  39. Mushtaq F, Wiggins IM, Kitterick PT, Anderson CA, Hartley DEH. The benefit of cross-modal reorganization on speech perception in pediatric cochlear implant recipients revealed using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:308.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, Pollard R, Rathmann C, Smith S. What medical education can do to ensure robust language development in deaf children. Med Sci Educ. 2014;24:409–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Rathmann C, Smith S. Support for parents of deaf children: common questions and informed, evidence-based answers. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;118:134–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Napoli DJ, Mellon NK, Niparko JK, Rathmann C, Mathur G, Humphries T, … Lantos JD. Should all deaf children learn sign language? Pediatrics 2015;136(1):170–176.

  43. Pizer G. Bimodal bilingual families: the negotiation of communication practices between deaf parents and their hearing children. In: Schwartz M, Verschik A, editors. Successful family language policy: parents, children and educators in interaction. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. p. 203–22.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Flaherty M. What we can learn from hearing parents of deaf children. Australas J Spec Educ. 2015;39(1):67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lieberman AM, Mitchiner J, Pontecorvo E. Hearing parents learning American sign Language with their deaf children: a mixed-methods survey. Appl Linguist Rev. 2024;15(1):309–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Luckner JL, Velaski A. Healthy families of children who are deaf. Am Ann Deaf. 2004;149(4):324–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Murray JJ, Hall WC, Snoddon K. The importance of signed languages for deaf children and their families. Hear J. 2020;73(3):30–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Weaver KA, Starner T. We need to communicate! helping hearing parents of deaf children learn american sign language. In: Jayant C, Ji H, White S, Bigham JP, editors. The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; 2011. p. 91–98.

  49. West D. Signs of hope: deafhearing family life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Napier J, Leigh G, Nann S. Teaching sign language to hearing parents of deaf children: an action research process. Deafness Educ Int. 2007;9(2):83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mueller V, Hurtig R. Technology-enhanced shared reading with deaf and hard-of-hearing children: the role of a fluent signing narrator. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2010;15(1):72–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lutz L. The early years: parents and young deaf children reading together. Odyssey: New Dir Deaf Educ. 2017;18:4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wolsey J-LA, Clark MD, Andrews JF. ASL and English bilingual shared book reading: an exploratory intervention for signing deaf children. Biling Res J. 2018;41(3):221–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Snoddon K. Hearing parents as plurilingual learners of ASL. In: McKee D, Rosen RS, McKee R, editors. Teaching and learning signed languages: international perspectives and practices. London: Palgrave; 2014. p. 175–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Snoddon K. Ways of taking from books in ASL book sharing. Sign Lang Stud. 2014;14(3):338–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Listman JD, Kurz KB. Lived experience: Deaf professionals’ stories of resilience and risks. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2020;25(2):239–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cheng Q, Roth A, Halgren E, Klein D, Chen J-K, Mayberry RI. Restricted language access during childhood affects adult brain structure in selective language regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023;120(7):e2215423120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Hecht JL. Responsibility in the current epidemic of language deprivation (1990–present). Matern Child Health J. 2020;24(11):1319–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Killan CF, Hoare DJ, Katiri R, Pierzycki RH, Adams B, Hartley DEH, et al. A scoping review of studies comparing outcomes for children with severe hearing loss using hearing aids to children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2022;43(2):290–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hall ML, Eigsti I-A, Bortfeld H, Lillo-Martin D. Auditory deprivation does not impair executive function, but language deprivation might: Evidence from a parent-report measure in deaf native signing children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2017;22(1):9–21.

  61. Nittrouer S, Caldwell-Tarr A, Lowenstein JH. Working memory in children with cochlear implants: problems are in storage, not processing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(11):1886–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kronenberger WG, Beer J, Castellanos I, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. Neurocognitive risk in children with cochlear implants. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(7):608–15. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.757. PMID: 24854882; PMCID: PMC5701781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hall WC, Levin LL, Anderson ML. Language deprivation syndrome: a possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(6):761–76. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s00127-017-1351-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Bharadwaj SV, Mehta JA. An exploratory study of visual sequential processing in children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;85:158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Castellanos I, Kronenberger WG, Beer J, Colson BG, Henning SC, Ditmars A, Pisoni DB. Concept formation skills in long-term cochlear implant users. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(1):27–40. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/deafed/enu039. Epub 2014 Nov 30. PMID: 25583706; PMCID: PMC4293374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shusterman A, Peretz-Lange R, Berkowitz T, Carrigan E. The development of early numeracy in deaf and hard of hearing children acquiring spoken language. Child Dev. 2022;93(5):e468–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Deocampo JA, Smith GNL, Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Conway CM. The role of statistical learning in understanding and treating spoken language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2018;49(3S):723–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Ulanet PG, Carson CM, Mellon NK, Niparko JK, Ouellette M. Correlation of neurocognitive processing subtypes with language performance in young children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int. 2014;15(4):230–40. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000077. Epub 2014 May 20. PMID: 24840711.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bell N, Angwin AJ, Wilson WJ, Arnott WL. Literacy development in children with cochlear implants: a narrative review. Aust J Learn Difficulties. 2022;27(1):115–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Glickman NS, Crump C, Hamerdinger S. Language deprivation is a game changer for the clinical specialty of Deaf Mental Health. JADARA. 2020;54(1):54. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/jadara/vol54/iss1/4

  71. Garberoglio CL, Cawthon S, Bond M. Deaf people and employment in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kim EJ, Byrne B, Parish SL. Deaf people and economic well-being: findings from the Life opportunities Survey. Disabil Soc. 2018;33(3):374–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. O’Rourke S, Glickman NS, Austen S. Deaf people in the criminal justice system: is a culturally affirmative response possible or desirable? In: Glickman N, editor. Deaf mental health care. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge; 2013. p. 323–57.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kushalnagar P, Ryan C, Paludneviciene R, Spellun A, Gulati S. Adverse childhood communication experiences associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases in adults who are deaf. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):548–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Humphries T, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, Rathmann C. Deaf children need rich language input from the start: support in advising parents. Children. 2022;9(11):1609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Humphries T, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Rathmann C. Sign language and multimodality as indicators of health for deaf newborns and young children: guidance for families and medical professionals. Med Res Arch 2023;11(1).

  77. Glickman NS, Hall WC, editors. Language deprivation and deaf mental health. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Snoddon K, Paul JJ. Framing sign language as a health need in Canadian and international policy. Matern Child Health J. 2020;24(11):1360–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wilkinson E, Morford JP. How bilingualism contributes to healthy development in deaf children: a public health perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2020;24:1330–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. World Federation of the Deaf. Position paper on access to national sign languages as a health need; 2016. https://wfdeaf.org/news/position-paper-on-access-to-national-sign-languages-as-a-health-need/

  81. Parent PV, Codet M, Aubry K, Bordure P, Bozorg-Grayeli A, Deguine O, et al. The French cochlear implant registry (EPIIC): cochlear implantation complications. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2020;2020(137):S37–43.

  82. Gosepath J, Lippert K, Keilmann A, Mann WJ. Analysis of fifty-six cochlear implant device failures. ORL. 2009;71(3):142–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Weise JB, Muller-Deile J, Brademann G, Meyer JE, Ambrosch P, Maune S. Impact to the head increases cochlear implant reimplantation rate in children. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2005;32(4):339–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Jacot E, Van Den Abbeele T, Debre HR, Wiener-Vacher SR. Vestibular impairments pre-and post-cochlear implant in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73(2):209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Cochlear Implants; 2021. Accessed 04/06/2023 https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants

  86. Schlauderaff A, Boyer KC. An overview of Food and Drug Administration medical device legislation and interplay with current medical practices. Cureus. 2019;11(5):e4627. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.7759/cureus.4627. PMID: 31312553; PMCID: PMC6615584.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Rathmann C. Global regulatory review needed for cochlear implants: a call for FDA leadership. Matern Child Health J. 2020;24:1345–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1993L0042:20071011:en:PDF

  89. Sorenson C, Drummond M. Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Q. 2014;92(1):114–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Niederländer C, Wahlster P, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P. Registries of implantable medical devices in Europe. Health Policy. 2013;113(1–2):20–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. https://www.dqsglobal.com/en-us/certify/regulation-mdr-eu-2017-745?utm_term=mdr%20certification&utm_campaign=MDR+and+MDSAP&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=2627767480&hsa_cam=18406756069&hsa_grp=142411877675&hsa_ad=623648784452&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-1964342547981&hsa_kw=mdr%20certification&hsa_mt=p&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwt-OwBhBnEiwAgwzrUnboJ-TjKSHUeoMQgXjaEf-RsqVvwVgHrBP3Ye0nG_voHlxDWDcljRoC5mAQAvD_BwE

  92. Pieber M, DeSaSouza S. Cochlear implant reliability. In: DeSaSouza S, editor. Cochlear implants: New and future directions. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. p. 473–99.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  93. Nisenbaum EJ, Roland JT, Waltzman S, Friedmann DR. Risk factors and management of postoperative infection following cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(7):e823–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Geers AE, Mitchell CM, Warner-Czyz A, Wang N, Eisenberg LS. Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics. 2017;140:e20151974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Swanwick R, Tsverik I. The role of sign language for deaf children with cochlear implants: good practice in sign bilingual settings. Deaf Educ Intl. 2007;9(4):214–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Johnson M. The developmental benefits of allowing deaf children with cochlear implants early access to sign language. Infants Young Child. 2021;34(2):141–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Szarkowski A. Language development in children with cochlear implants: possibilities and challenges. Lang Deprivation deaf Mental Health 2018:235–62.

  98. Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB. Neurocognitive functioning in deaf children with cochlear implants. Evidence-based Practices Deaf Educ. 2018;1:363–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Marshall C, Jones A, Denmark T, Mason K, Atkinson J, Botting N, Morgan G. Deaf children’s non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience. Front Psychol. 2015;6:527.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Goodwin C, Carrigan E, Walker K, Coppola M. Language not auditory experience is related to parent-reported executive functioning in preschool‐aged deaf and hard‐of‐hearing children. Child Dev. 2022;93(1):209–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Hall ML, Eigsti I-M, Bortfeld H, Lillo-Martin D. Executive function in deaf children: auditory access and language access. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018;61(8):1970–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Henner J, Caldwell-Harris CL, Novogrodsky R, Hoffmeister R. American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Langdon C, Kurz C, Coppola M. The importance of early number concepts for learning mathematics in deaf and hard of hearing children. Perspect Early Child Psychol Educ. 2023;5(2):6.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Krause CM, DeafMath. Exploring the influence of sign language on mathematical conceptualization. CERME. 2017;10:1316–23.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Krause CM. Embodied geometry: signs and gestures used in the deaf mathematics classroom–the case of symmetry. In: Hunter R, editor. Mathematical discourse that breaks barriers and creates space for marginalized learners. Leiden: Brill; 2018. p. 171–94.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Krause CM. Brief report: what you see is what you get? Sign language in the mathematics classroom. J Res Math Educ. 2019;50(1):84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Krause CM, Wille AM. Sign language in light of mathematics education. Am Ann Deaf. 2021;166(3):352–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Thiessen ED, Girard S, Erickson LC. Statistical learning and the critical period: how a continuous learning mechanism can give rise to discontinuous learning. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Cogn Sci. 2016;7(4):276–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Clark MD, Hauser PC, Miller P, Kargin T, Rathmann C, Guldenoglu B, et al. The importance of early sign language acquisition for deaf readers. Read Writ Q. 2016;32(2):127–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Afzaal HM, Anis F, Amjad F, Manj MH, Zafar S, Shahzadi K. Developing reading skills of students with hearing impairment by using sign language. J Posit Sch Psychol. 2023;394–407.

  111. Scott JA. Building a foundation for reading success: early American sign Language and academic literacy outcomes among deaf and hard of hearing adolescents. Int J Biling Educ Biling. 2022;25(9):3347–60. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/13670050.2022.2052791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Hrastinski I, Wilbur RB. Academic achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in an ASL/English bilingual program. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(2):156–70. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/deafed/env072

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. McQuarrie L, Abbott M. Bilingual deaf students’ phonological awareness in ASL and reading skills in English. Sign Lang Stud. 2013;14(1):80–100. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1353/sls.2013.0028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Novogrodsky R, Caldwell-Harris C, Fish S, Hoffmeister RJ. The development of antonym knowledge in American sign Language (ASL) and its relationship to reading comprehension in English. Lang Learn. 2014;64(4):749–70. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/lang.12078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Scott JA, Hoffmeister RJ. Superordinate precision: an examination of academic writing among bilingual deaf and hard of hearing students. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2018;23(2):173–82. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/deafed/enx052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Wolbers KA, Bowers LM, Dostal HM, Graham SC. Deaf writers’ application of American sign Language knowledge to English. Int J Biling Educ Biling. 2014;17(4):410–28. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/13670050.2013.816262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Hoffmeister RJ, Henner J, Caldwell-Harris C, Novogrodsky R. Deaf children’s ASL vocabulary and ASL syntax knowledge supports English knowledge. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2022;27(1):37–47. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/deafed/enab032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Allen TE, Letteri A, Choi SH, Dang D. Early visual language exposure and emergent literacy in preschool deaf children: findings from a national longitudinal study. Am Ann Deaf. 2014;159(4):346–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Allen TE. ASL skills, fingerspelling ability, home communication context and early alphabetic knowledge of preschool-aged deaf children. Sign Lang Stud. 2015;15(3):233–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Melton J, Higbee R. Educational interpreters: meeting the communication needs of children with cochlear implants. Odyssey: New Dir Deaf Educ. 2013;14:60–2.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Watkins S, Pittman P, Walden B. The Deaf mentor experimental project for young children who are deaf and their families. Am Ann Deaf. 1998;143:29–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Woll B. The consequences of very late exposure to BSL as an L1. Biling Lang Cogn. 2018;21(5):936–37. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/S1366728918000238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. La Grutta S, Piombo MA, Spicuzza V, Riolo M, Fanara I, Trombini E, et al. The relationship between knowing sign language and quality of life among Italian people who are deaf: a cross-sectional study. Healthcare. 2023;11(7):1021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Russell DM, Meyerson BE, Mahoney AN, Garnett I, Ferrell C, Newgass K, et al. Come back when you’re infected: pharmacy access to sterile syringes in an Arizona Secret Shopper Study, 2023. Harm Reduct J. 2024;2149. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12954-024-00943-w

  125. Dickson-Gomez J, Krechel S, Ohlrich J, Montaque HDG, Weeks M, Li J, et al. They make it too hard and too many hoops to jump: system and organizational barriers to drug treatment during epidemic rates of opioid overdose. Harm Reduct J. 2024;2152. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12954-024-00964-5

  126. Liu R. Designed to fail: why racial equity in school funding is so hard to achieve. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2024.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  127. Snoddon K. Possible beings: Deaf children and linguistic justice. Deaf Educ Int https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/14643154.2024.2342056

  128. Listman JD, Dingus-Eason J. How to be a deaf scientist: building navigational capital. J Divers High Educ. 2018;11(3):279–94. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/dhe0000049

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was undertaken and completed without funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Tom Humphries

  2. Department of Linguistics, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, 20002, USA

    Gaurav Mathur

  3. Department of Linguistics, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, 19081, USA

    Donna Jo Napoli

  4. Department of Deaf Studies and Sign Language Interpreting, Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christian Rathmann

Authors
  1. Tom Humphries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaurav Mathur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donna Jo Napoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Rathmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to all parts of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna Jo Napoli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humphries, T., Mathur, G., Napoli, D.J. et al. An approach designed to fail deaf children and their parents and how to change it. Harm Reduct J 21, 132 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12954-024-01039-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12954-024-01039-1

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517