All these studies reported that recipients communicated overwhelming positive results in regards to the benefits perceived (sound localization and hearing in noise) from the implantation of the second cochlear implant. When these investigations were compared against one another, the results speculated that a high number of children with the BICI (compared to a single CI) accomplished speed recognition and sound localization in noise exercises to the same degree as children with normal hearing. This person mentions that children who received the second implant within four years indicated substantial improvements in their sound localization and speech recognition. For this investigation, children underwent a sequential process with three-eight years apart. This therefore portrays that the children should have experienced significant improvements with their hearing. The results suggest that one child did not gain any sort of benefit from the BICI. Two children demonstrated steady developments with the BICI. The inconsistency in the results could have occurred because the researchers used the minimum of three years. Because the sample size is quite small for this study, the differences do not seem statistically noteworthy due to the lack of comparability with control groups where researchers could usually assess outcomes and determine if an essential difference is apparent between children with BICIs and CIs. The authors do not take into consideration the cost of the second implant including; hardware expenses, programming time and risks associated with surgery.Summerfield et al, 2002 suggests that individuals who have unilateral implantation will have a better quality of life in regards to the expenses associated with the second implant. Future articles should evaluate the benefits as well as the costs related to the implantation of the second implant in children and adults. There was no potential bias with this article, as it states that the authors had no financial interest in this article. This research article was supported by the National Institute of Deafness and Communicative disorders and the Cochlear Americas. As a result readers feel confident that the analysis is reliable, viable and accurate. In 2000, Svirsky et. al. created a scientific assessment where they examined ‘language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants’. This investigation was conducted in Indiana university, school of medicine located in USA. The language abilities of seventy children were examined roughly four months before they obtained their cochlear implant. They were again tested six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four and thirty months after they received their cochlear implant. However, not all the children were assessed throughout all the monthly gaps as they were simply not available to undertake the examination. This provides inconsistency with the results as it did not comply with the expectations of the experiment. The article highlights ethical issues associated with cochlear implants.
Members of the Deaf World believe that if cochlear implants are successful in providing full hearing capabilities to deaf individuals, it would be unethical because it can lead to the deterioration of the Deaf culture. However, it should not be perceived as unethical if a deaf child’s parents only want their child to grow up interacting with the hearing world like other children. Tyler 1993 places emphasis on the ethical concerns with cochlear implants, stating that cochlear implants in kids are “unsound scientifically, procedurally and ethically”. This also includes the depiction of children being ‘defenseless’ when undergoing the implantation surgery.