[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
Time: 1:42:04 PM
Remote Name: 220.127.116.11
I really appreciate your comments.
But to reply to your two specific issues:
First, the issue of a growing child is dealt with quite commonly in all areas of prosthetic management. Remember that for an ASF prosthetic device, the actual chip is removable – and can be placed in another housing with relative ease. All that is require would be annual (or semi-annual) ear molds, which could then be made into better-fitting housing. If you find a reasonable audiologist, the cost should be minimal.
Second, I think your (second) point may need further clarification. Prosthetic devices devoid of empirical data supporting the theory in which it’s based _should_ be avoided. Skepticism of such products is definitely warranted. However, prosthetic ASF devices (i.e., devices using empirically tested forms of altered speech feedback) already have amassed quite a bit of empirical data, and have documented a very significant reduction of stuttering frequency in a variety of speaking environments. Subsequently, I suggested that the values and treatment goals of each client be paired with clinical managements that best target the treatment objectives. (If you read between the lines in what I just wrote – I hinted that some prosthetic devices are founded in scientific research, while some are not. Subsequently, the prosthetic devices founded in research will most likely be very effective, while those that are not founded in science will most likely not work at all.)