What would you think, what would you dream. Is it possible for an indivudal allficted by these disabillities to develop at all? Or would they maintain the mentality of a baby?
I think she grew up to be an author, although she was a leftist, if that helps. However, she was 18 months or so when she lost her senses.
.
You may have heard of Helen Keller. Most people know more about her childhood, but she grew up to be of normal intelligence.
Keller and others will most likely develop normal intellect IF given proper therapy and enrichment. But also, a sighted, hearing person who is deprived of human language will often never be normal, as is the case with feral children.
They sure would play a mean pinball.
(Yeah, someone had to say it. And yeah, Tommy wasn’t born that way.)
What would it be like to be in some sort of accident where you lose your sight and hearing and are completely paralyzed. You basically have no way of communicating but are still fully conscious. Is this possible? Has it ever happened?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=539322&highlight=locked+syndrome
OK, not exactly the same thing, but close.
I’ve heard that deaf people who know Sign Language think in signs.
Sign language is a language in its own right, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true.
Oh, and it seems that visual skills are not lost with no vision during childhood.
Helen Keller was not born blind or deaf, she wsa already 19 months old when an illness caused her to become blind and deaf. By that age, most children can speak a few words, and understand a great deal more (and Helen Keller was, doubtless, more than averagely intelligent).* It is a very different matter from being blind and deaf from birth.
As an anecdotal example, I once, on impulse, asked my baby daughter “Who are you?” (I don’t remember exactly how old she was, but it was during her first year. She was not walking yet, and I don’t think she yet had many words beyond “dada,” “mama,” and maybe “no.”) To my amazement she immediately replied with an attempt to her own name, although she could not pronounce it clearly. Her name is Elena (with a short central e), and she said something like “Enna”. I said, “No you are not Enna, you are Elena, Ellie,” (which we often called her) and she delightedly exclaimed “Ellie!”
The point is, she clearly readily understood the conceptually quite complex question “Who are you?” at an age when she could barely talk, and way younger than when Helen Keller became blind and deaf. I don’t suppose she is at all exceptional in this. She is bright kid, but no genius.
Not to put doubt on your claim, but I often hear parents say “Listen! She’s saying mommy!”
Baby: Muahahdklayudalk.
“That’s right! Mommy! Her first word!”
Exactly. I have been reading through other comments and they assume either that the child was NOT born with these afflictions. If the child had experienced no visual or aural stimulus, what would their thoughts/dreams be like? How do they develope if given nothing? Will their brain develope, or will they stay at the most primitive level?
I was certainly gonna do it. But now I don’t have to. 
It’s a scientific fact that when people have children they give some of their own intelligence to the child, and thus become temporarily retarded. Replace “kitty” with “baby” as needed.
The Deaf-Blind dx is pretty low incidence. Most deaf-blind kids have other disabilties, (especially with although there are a significent number of kids with Usher’s Syndrome who are very high functioning. (I have a few friends who have Usher’s)
Also, complete visual and hearing loss is very rare. Most deaf blind kids have some residual hearing and vision. One of my friends is low vision and wears hearing aids.
As the facts claimed in that article contradict those of many other well documented cases, as well as solidly established results from animal research, I would be very skeptical about it. My guess is that this girl actually could see for a fair period of time when when she was an infant. Who has documented that she was actually blind from birth? (Blindness is not easy to spot in a newborn, as their motor control is so poor that healthy, sighted babies do not behave much differently from blind ones.)
Actually, from the Time article it is far from clear if this case is even exceptional. Yes, people who have their vision restored after long, early-onset blindness, typically do recover some useful visual function, but by no means do they become normally sighted (even this sensationalizing and confused article admits she would still be considered legally blind by US standards) even if the optics of their eyes are now fine.
That is gibberish for a start. Of course, you can form images without the right “circuitry.” An eye can form an image even if it has been cut right out of someone’s head. What you need the circuitry for is to interpret the information embodied in the image (or, actually, what will be a rapid succession of different images, as the eyes constantly move about) in a useful way.
The research presented in the article does contradict previous research, which is the point why is is controversial. From what I’ve read of Sinha and other’s research, these people do not ever achieve normal acuity. Nevertheless, they do learn to complete these tasks, which previous research hasn’t shown.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Yeah I know. Once, when she was even younger, both my wife and I distinctly heard her say “I’m da baby.” We knew perfectly well she didn’t, of course. It was just babble.
The incident I described above was quite different. By that time she did have some, limited, spoken language, and some understanding of things of things said to her (like “come here” or “no”). She was very clearly responding to my question, and trying hard to say her name, and, when she realized she actually could say her “nickname” she was delighted. What amazed me about it was that, with such limited speaking skills, she clearly easily understood such an abstract question.
And I am not saying she is exceptional, I am saying it is evidence (and I will bet there is plenty more of it, and not just anecdotes) that babies’ understanding of language develops a lot more quickly than their ability to speak. (And that, therefore, children who become blind and deaf fairly early in life are in a very different situation, in terms of their chances of recovering cognitive abilities if their senses are restored - or if like Ms. Keller, they are taught other ways to communicate - than are children who are actually blind and deaf from birth.)
Do you know in what way it does? Of course, every case is a bit different, but from what I can tell from the Time article, this case is not* radically* different from others I have read about, though it may well be true that she is doing somewhat better than other similar documented cases.
And is there really a serious controversy, or is that just a matter of a journalist (who clearly does not know what she is talking about) “sexing up” the story she decided to make out some random journal article?
Those are genuine questions, by the way. I don’t know anything about this case beyond what is in the Time article. Maybe there is something exceptional or groundbreaking about it (and maybe you know about that); but I do know a fair bit about visual science, and I just don’t see anything that much surprises me in that article.
If the kid had recovered full, normal visual function (and if she really was blind from birth, or even early infancy), then that would be amazing.
The main article in question is here (pdf). There are several studies of “critical period” which posit that visual input is needed during early childhood for general visual perception in postoperative adulthood. Of course this is mostly based on a case study; not all sources of congenital blindness necessarily present the same results.
And, incidentally, those parents are doing the right thing, and that is how kids begin to learn to talk.
It may be random babble the first time, but the child soon realizes it is getting praise and attention when it makes that “mama” sound when its mother is present, or when it wants its mother to come, and thus “mama” comes to have a meaning for the child. This is all possible because an infant understands a good deal more about what is going on around it, and, in particular, what is said to it, than it can yet articulate or meaningfully respond to.