{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"73060262","dateCreated":"1428478093","smartDate":"Apr 8, 2015","userCreated":{"username":"frankbarnes3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/frankbarnes3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ccs395.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/73060262"},"dateDigested":1532726264,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Lab Report 3","description":"Topic 1\u2028
\nA) Social Media of Cochlear Implants\u2028
\nB) How has the cochlear implant social media audience evolved, and to what extent has it shaped the communities of deaf culture?
\n1. Cochlear implants have been received by over 200,000 people in need worldwide, and the number continues to grow as technology, affordability, and access to this resource improves.
\na) The availability of social media groups, forums, mentorship, et cetera, are all efforts to bridge connection among hearing professionals, CI recipients, and between users as a mentorship of experiences and support.
\n2. A case study organized through Tufts School of Medicine equates that \u201cpopulation growth in CI users in the past decade has coincided with an extensive evolution of Internet-based communication patterns, including that of social media\u201d (Saxena).\u2028
\nC) Communication on digital platforms has assisted in bridging the medical, social, and literal hearing barriers that exists for many deaf and hard of hearing people.\u2028
\nD) The profound importance and impact of social media is highlighted as a life-line of interconnection for cochlear implant users, fellow recipients, hearing care professionals, as well as caring friends and family\u2013medically and psychologically.
\nE) Preliminary Research
\n1. The three largest cochlear implant companies\u2013Advanced Bionics, Cochlear, and Med-El\u2013are widely active on social media: primarily on Facebook and on their own website forums, discussion groups, and mentorship.\u2028
\n2. Useful Evidence: Honors Thesis research conducted through the Program in Communication Disorders at the University of Arkansas elaborately details the impacts and usage of social media among Cochlear Implant users, as well as other groups of deaf individuals.
\n3. Useful Evidence: Case study of \u201cSocial Media Utilization in the Cochlear Implant Community\u201d, conducted by the Tufts School of Medicine (and further collaborations). The output is a full, in-depth, and dense analysis, and includes dynamic breakdowns of numerical data, visual feedback, and concrete conclusions to the study.
\na) Personal belief, supported by medical know-how, that \u201cit is important [for] medical providers to understand the type of health care information available online. [At this time], no previous study has investigated the utilization of social media in the CI community. The role of social media has been studied in ophthalmology, oncology, and psychiatry, but not yet in this specialized community\u201d. (Saxena).
\nb) It is evident that \u201cthe CI community engages in the use of a wide range of online social media sources. The CI community utilizes social media for support, advocacy, rehabilitation information, research endeavors, and sharing of personal experiences\u201d (Saxena).
\n\u2028F) Further Directions for research:\u00a0\u2028
\n1. While technology helps bridge particular barriers, there still seems to remain a racial divide in the access to important social media platforms among people with hearing loss. Importantly, social media technologies will help isolated individuals to access necessary resources, in spite of racial trends of limitation.
\n2. To further empower the deaf and hard of hearing, in what ways can social media websites continue to be harnessed, to improve provider to patient cooperation, as well as garner positive widespread publicity towards patient (and general) education, about deaf and hard of hearing lifestyles.
\n
\nTopic 2\u2028
\nA) Experience of Subtitled Television and Cinema with Hearing Loss\u2028
\nB) What is the impact of subtitled entertainment upon the enjoyment of digital content for a hearing impaired viewer? Furthermore, what is the value of an \u201cunbarred\u201d film and television experience, in particular, for deaf and hard of hearing viewers.
\n1. Key Issues\u2013Television and cinema experience for people with hearing loss: Provided as a statement by Action on Hearing Loss, the impact of subtitles and value of an \u201cunbarred\u201d feeling is noted.
\na. Access to the television for people with hearing loss has vastly improved in the last few decades. However, there are still many programs that remain inaccessible due to a lack of subtitles or signed interpretation, poor quality subtitles or inaudible speech. With technology rapidly changing, bringing new ways of watching TV, people with hearing loss are being left behind.
\n1) Quotas for access services should be extended to all television programs, regardless of how they are broadcast or watched.
\n2) Clarity of speech and the quality of live subtitling must be improved.
\nb. People with hearing loss have a limited choice of films at the cinema due to the lack of adjustments made by cinema exhibitors and distributors. People with hearing loss should be able to choose which film they would like to see, as well as the time they would like to see it.
\n1) Every film\u2026.should have subtitles, and cinemas must increase the number of subtitled films they screen to improve choice for people with hearing loss.
\n2) Loop and infrared systems should be installed in screens and areas where interaction is required.\u2028
\nC) There is a need for the availability of subtitles (visual input), alongside enhanced audio presence, on digital screens for all levels of hearing disability\u2013Deaf, deafened, and hard of hearing\u2013to enhance their individual enjoyment of audio-visual television and related digital content media.\u00a0
\n\u2028D) Audio-visual input is a tremendous aspect of television viewer experience, and the essential audio aspect would be lacking to a diverse and numerous audience of the hearing impaired without the availability (and continued presence) of subtitled media.\u00a0\u2028
\nE) Preliminary Research\u2028
\n1. Useful Evidence: An article from the globally active Action on Hearing Loss organization dives into this topic, covering many essential areas that govern the initial question and research problem, directly discussing television subtitling and hearing impaired viewers.\u00a0
\na) Action on Hearing Loss has made it a mission to \u201c\u2026work with a range of stakeholders to try to achieve an increase in the amount of access services available on television and\u00a0video on demand\u00a0services, including subtitling and signing\u201d. The organization is \u201c\u2026raising awareness amongst these stakeholders of the problems that are experienced with subtitles, such as delays and errors, and the impact that this has on the viewer\u201d.\u2028
\nF) Further Directions for research:\u00a0\u2028
\n1. There is a difference between subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH), and closed captions (CC).
\n2. Subtitles enhance the overall enjoyment of television and cinema for the hard of hearing.\u2028
\n3. There is a development of psychological dependence and reliance on subtitles for users with hearing loss. Nonetheless, the unbarred experience of television and film still remains intact, as the ability to enjoy this media is no longer limited to the individual. \u2028
\n
\nBibliography\u2028\u2028
\n
\nTopic 1
\n
\nBodemann. Margaret A. \u201cBuilding Interaction with an Isolated Population through Social Media: The Deaf Community\u201d. Honors Thesis. University of Arkansas. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2015\u2028<https:\/\/uarkive.uark.edu\/xmlui\/bitstream\/handle\/10826\/ETD-2012-05-231\/BODEMANN-THESIS.pdf?sequence=2<\/a>>.\u2028\u2028
\n
\nGoggin, Gerard & Newell, Christopher. \u201cDigital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media\u201d Rowan & Littlefield Publishers. Google Books. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.\u2028<https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?hl=en&lr=&id=808HMxDE2pYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=social+media+of+cochlear+implants&ots=_gEBCin4CM&sig=YX8dsqmKfQndzSH6muwjf8DZ1wM#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/a>>.
\n
\nSaxena, Rajeev C. \u201cSocial Media Utilization in the Cochlear Implant Community\u201d. Tufts University School of Medicine. Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Apr. 2015. <http:\/\/www.researchposters.com\/Posters\/AAOHNSF\/AAO2014\/SP310.pdf<\/a>>.
\n
\nTopic 2\u2028\u2028
\n
\nAction on Hearing Loss. \u201cWe're working hard to improve access to\u00a0TV for people with hearing loss\u201d. Access to Television. Action on Hearing Loss. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015
\n<http:\/\/www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk\/get-involved\/campaign\/access-to-television\/what-are-we-doing.aspx<\/a>>.
\n
\nMatthews, Laura. \u201cGetting the Full Picture? Viewers\u2019 experiences of television subtitling\u201d. Action on Hearing Loss. The Royal National Institution for Deaf People. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015. <http:\/\/www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk\/supporting-you\/policy-research-and-influencing\/research\/getting-the-full-picture.aspx<\/a>>.\u2028
\n
\nNeves, Jos\u00e9lia. \u201c10 fallacies about Subtitling for the d\/Deaf and the hard of
\nhearing\u201d. The Journal of Specialised Translation\u2013Issue 10. July 2008. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http:\/\/www.jostrans.org\/issue10\/art_neves.pdf<\/a>>.
\n
\nVITA. \u201cBasics of Captioning for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing\u201d. Virginia Information and Technology Agency. n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http:\/\/www.vita.virginia.gov\/uploadedfiles\/vita_main_public\/unmanaged\/library\/accessibility\/basicscaptioningdeafhardhearing.pdf<\/a>>.
\n
\n\u2013Frank","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"72516054","dateCreated":"1426053619","smartDate":"Mar 10, 2015","userCreated":{"username":"frankbarnes3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/frankbarnes3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ccs395.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/72516054"},"dateDigested":1532726264,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Lab Report 2","description":"Topic 1
\nA) Social Media of Cochlear Implants
\nB) When did deaf-related social media arise, how has this social media audience evolved, and to what extent has it shaped the communities of deaf culture?
\nC) Communication on digital platforms has assisted in bridging the medical, social, and literal hearing barriers that exists for many deaf and hard of hearing people.
\nD) The profound importance and impact of social media is highlighted as a life-line of interconnection for cochlear implant users, fellow recipients, hearing care professionals, as well as caring friends and family.
\nE) Preliminary Research
\n 1. Useful Evidence: Honors Thesis research conducted through the Program in Communication Disorders at the University of Arkansas elaborately details the impacts and usage of social media among Cochlear Implant users, as well as other groups of deaf individuals.
\nF) Further Directions\/Questions for research:
\n 1. While technology helps bridge particular barriers, there still seems to remain a racial divide in the access to important social media platforms among people with hearing loss. Importantly, social media technologies will help isolated individuals to access necessary resources, in spite of racial trends of limitation.
\n 2. Which forms of social media are most widely accessed among the more seasoned group of Cochlear Implant users?
\n
\nTopic 2
\nA) Experience of Subtitled Television with Hearing Loss
\nB) What is the impact of subtitled entertainment upon the enjoyment of digital content for a hearing impaired viewer? Furthermore, what is the value of an \u201cunbarred\u201d film and television experience, in particular to deaf and hard of hearing viewers.
\nC) There is a need for the availability of subtitles (visual input), alongside enhanced audio presence, on digital screens for all levels of hearing disability\u2013Deaf, deafened, and hard of hearing\u2013to enhance their individual enjoyment of audio-visual television and related digital content media.
\nD) Audio-visual input is a tremendous aspect of television viewer experience, and the essential audio aspect would be lacking to a diverse and numerous audience of the hearing impaired without the availability (and continued presence) of subtitled media.
\nE) Preliminary Research
\n 1. Useful Evidence: An article from the globally active Action on Hearing Loss organization dives into this topic, covering many essential areas that govern the initial question and research problem, directly discussing television subtitling and hearing impaired viewers.
\nF) Further Directions\/Questions for research:
\n 1. Do subtitles enhance or distract from the overall visual stimulation of television?
\n 2. Have some users with hearing loss become too reliant on subtitles, therefore taking away from the unbarred experience of television and film.
\n
\nTopic 3
\nA) Emergence of Assistive Digitalized Accessories for Cochlear Implants
\nB) Initial Question: What are some of the recent accessory innovations that have emerged to the benefit of Cochlear Implant (CI) users?
\nC) Research Problem: The extension of material longevity through digital means. Some accessories have proven more useful and lasting than others, depending on the age, financial ability, and personality of individual cochlear implant users.
\nD) Justification for Research Problem: These additions to the physical materiality of a cochlear implant\u2013processor, batteries, cords, and headpieces\u2013add significant freshness and expansion to the sometimes seemingly limited nature that follows hearing impairment.
\nE) Preliminary Research
\n 1. Useful Evidence: An article comprised by a PhD scholar highlights the trend towards the use of assistive technologies\u2013such as Bluetooth-enabled devices for telephone, and television personally attuned to a viewers cochlear implant processor\u2013to stimulate awareness, engagement, and comfort of cochlear implant users in various social, work, and personal settings that are often disrupted by present background noise.
\nF) Further Directions\/Questions for research:
\n 1. How appropriate\/accepted are technologies, such as Bluetooth, in particular social, work, and personal settings for cochlear implant users among normal hearing environments? Additionally, the more widespread appearance of Bluetooth, and enabled devices, signifies positively suitable adjustments to everyday environments.
\n 2. What are some of the innovations, in wireless hearing assistive technology, on the near horizon for widespread public usage, to the benefit of the cochlear implant community?
\n
\nBibliography
\n
\nBodemann. Margaret A. \u201cBuilding Interaction with an Isolated Population through Social Media: The Deaf Community\u201d. Honors Thesis. University of Arkansas. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2015
\n<https:\/\/uarkive.uark.edu\/xmlui\/bitstream\/handle\/10826\/ETD-2012-05-231\/BODEMANN-THESIS.pdf?sequence=2<\/a>>.
\n
\nGoggin, Gerard & Newell, Christopher. \u201cDigital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media\u201d Rowan & Littlefield Publishers. Google Books. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.
\n<https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?hl=en&lr=&id=808HMxDE2pYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=social+media+of+cochlear+implants&ots=_gEBCin4CM&sig=YX8dsqmKfQndzSH6muwjf8DZ1wM#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/a>>.
\n
\nMatthews, Laura. \u201cGetting the Full Picture? Viewers\u2019 experiences of television subtitling\u201d. Action on Hearing Loss. The Royal National Institution for Deaf People. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015. <http:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actiononhearingloss.org.uk%2F~%2Fmedia%2FDocuments%2FPolicy%2520research%2520and%2520influencing%2FResearch%2FGetting%2520the%2520full%2520picture%2FA0609GettingthefullpictureRev4.ashx&ei=YWv0VNupKMTksATisoGIDQ&usg=AFQjCNEsw4RCkwKbpm3G9ULlg5BmRh3UKw&bvm=bv.87269000,d.cWc&cad=rja<\/a>>.
\nWhat are we doing? \u201cWe're working hard to improve access to\u00a0TV for people with hearing loss\u201d. Access to Television. Action on Hearing Loss. n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015
\n<http:\/\/www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk\/get-involved\/campaign\/access-to-television\/what-are-we-doing.aspx<\/a>>.
\n
\nWolfe, Jace PhD. \u201cTen Advances in Cochlear Implant Technology and Services\u201d. Plural Publishing. 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 2 Mar. 2015
\n<http:\/\/www.pluralpublishing.com\/wp\/?p=2135<\/a>>.
\n
\n\u2013 Frank","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}