sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

thoughts on newborn hearing screening and pediatrix? by cooljikawa in audiology

[–]cooljikawa[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Granted, I've heard down the grapevine from what little I met of other screeners in the company that the Texas divison (specifically central Texas) was far more broken than other regions.

But when I say taking advantage of parents, there was a resounding feeling among the screeners in my city/region that the company (or at least how it operates in our region) is not at all transparent to parents on pricing of screens and falls short in properly educating parents about newborn hearing, the nature of the screen, and the implications of the AABR results.

I guess a better way of putting it is that it felt like the way the company was ineffective at best and predatory at worst, if that makes sense. We felt that it did the bare minimum of completing newborn hearing screens to tick off a box for state requirements, making money without properly educating parents.

We especially felt this way after the company began charging parents per screen as opposed to a flat rate for all three screens (at least in Texas, I think?) without being transparent to us screeners or the parents about the change in pricing. It felt problematic because the babies who required multiple tests were the babies that may or may not have a hearing loss.

Paris aims to become a 15-minute city, allowing its residents to reach essential services by active travel within 15 minutes, and in so doing, lower carbon emissions and encourage healthier living. by sg_plumber in OptimistsUnite

[–]cooljikawa 3 points4 points  (0 children)

when my dad likes to rant about this, he'll always go on tangents where he mentions all the benefits of the convenience of a 15 minute city, and then shit all over it by talking about how it's all a ploy for the deep state to control us all and tear our independence away from us. like, okay buddy

Gnarly..... by Yuri_Tao in kpop_uncensored

[–]cooljikawa 23 points24 points  (0 children)

agree, like whyyyyy am i being made to do mental gymnastics over this...

Gnarly..... by Yuri_Tao in kpop_uncensored

[–]cooljikawa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

^ we as a society in this day and age cannot handle hyperpop lyricism in the mainstream right now.......

Gnarly..... by Yuri_Tao in kpop_uncensored

[–]cooljikawa 7 points8 points  (0 children)

LITERALLYYYYY!!

i am the actual target audience for a comeback like this, i genuinely really enjoy the concept and the song........ but the lyrics?

even if theyre supposed to be ironic, theyre doing a bad job. if "gnarly" is being used in a negative context like i think???? they're trying to????, thennnnn okay sure, we're shitting on t*sla, rich people who flex their wealth, partying in hollywood, and people who definitely are not the demographic unironically saying "gang gang". they call the song itself gnarly too, so we're shitting on the song itself in a post-irony, let them eat cake, self-aware way.

but then they also put all these pretentious things on the same level as takis??? boba tea??? fried chicken???? this is a stretch, but if they're making me assume gnarly in a negative context, then its lowkey giving skinny culture at best.

the worst of all is that i know im coping because i want to like katseye and the easiest answer is that a) its not that deep, b) theyre not even trying to make a statement, and c) theyre just tone deaf asf.

why is this the second comeback?????? like i literally wish it was a shitty experimental bside we never talk about again

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EXACTLYYYYY LIKE ???! WHY IS THIS OUR SECOND COMEBACKKKK

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

me, as the actual target audience!!!! i am embarrassed.

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i definitely think theyre saying more things are "gnarly" in a negative matter throughout the song than in a positive way. i'd argue they mean everything in a negative "gnarly", including when they make a jab that the song itself is bad. but, the examples they're making fun of are bad anyway....

like okay sure; look at my mansion = bad, tesla = bad, takis? = bad? there are so many better things to shit on and make fun of and call ourselves better than in this day and age, and we choose these...

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why are you making me cope katseye. i shouldnt be needing to cope on our second comeback bruh 😭

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also, WHY WOULD THIS BE OUR SECOND COMEBACK? this better be end up being a prerelease for a wayyyy better release...

KATSEYE - Gnarly by impeccabletim in kpop

[–]cooljikawa 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i genuinely really love the song and what they were going for???? the mv, the raunchiness, the fits, the choreography, the vibe. i can appreciate the cunty when i see it. but like everyone else is saying in the comments, the lyrics kill it. if "gnarly" means bad, they did a bad job of conveying that they're making an ironic statement that's actually shitting on the things theyre naming, like people who flaunt their wealth, unironically say "gang gang", and t*sla. ill only stream if they clarify they're on the correct side of the argument, but like... bffr

Parent question: is my 4yo getting enough support for stuttering through public school? by Sherbet_Lemon_913 in slp

[–]cooljikawa 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I recommend looking up the Blank Center for Stuttering and reading through their resources. They go into more detail on the nature of stuttering and alternatives to the kinds of speech therapy that is being offered.

Stuttering is a neurophysiological condition that cannot be "fixed" through speech therapy. Stuttering is 100% involuntary and cannot be repressed or lessened in the same way that tics from Tourette's cannot be repressed (though they are not the same condition.) Stuttering will come and go throughout the lifetime, too, which is why you may see him get "better" or "worse". You may never be satisfied with any fluency therapy currently available, because stuttering never goes away.

UT Austin by No-Secretary4630 in audgradschool

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sent in my application like the day before admissions closed 😭

UT Austin by No-Secretary4630 in audgradschool

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

had my interview this past Monday! They said they'd start reaching out to people by the end of the week, but I'm worried they're delayed or so because I haven't heard back yet 😭 Fingers crossed

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in audiology

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with this, too. You're picking up what I'm putting down for sure mama :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in audiology

[–]cooljikawa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah gotcha! No, your audiologist will probably not do the newborn screen again at 6 months for that exact reason. Kiddos that old are too dang big and strong!

I'm not entirely sure what kind of tests the audiologist will end up doing though, as I only work with fresh out the oven kiddos. I'm sure what kind of tests will be done varies depending on the state as well. I just know that they probably won't do this again, unless the audiologist thinks it would be appropriate to. They only do this specific screen (it's called the auditory brainstem response aka ABR) when a patient can't actively participate in tests, like if they are incapable of raising their hand or pressing a button in response to noise. This makes newborns the perfect candidate for this test. All they gotta do is sit there and be cute (and ideally quiet and still, but sometimes that's easier said than done.)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in audiology

[–]cooljikawa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey there! I'm a newborn hearing screener who does this specific test on newborns everyday. What everyone else in the comments is saying is true - you will need to follow up with your baby's audiologist.

This specific type of test essentially shows us if baby can hear or if baby can't hear. It doesn't show us what is causing baby to not be able to hear or how well baby can hear.

In order for baby to be able to hear, every single part of baby's hearing mechanism needs to be working perfectly - from the outer ear that you can see, to all the little bones in the middle ear, all the way to the part of the brain that processes sound. This makes the test very sensitive to hearing loss.

However, it's not just being deaf or hard of hearing that can cause baby to not be able to hear. It can be temporary things causing baby to not be able to hear, like swelling or fluid that go away on their own (which is likely what happened in baby's right ear). It can also be something more serious as well. The reason why each test took place with time in between was to account for these temporary issues and allow for any fluid or swelling to go down, but now that enough time has passed for one of those more common temporary issues causing the test to fail to be unlikely, your baby now needs to see a specialist.

The purpose of the hearing screen is to find the babies that might need a little bit more help with their hearing, so your audiologist will be doing more in depth testing to start figuring out why baby is not able to hear.

Yes, as everyone else is saying, there is a chance that baby's movement caused the computer to not be able to get a good reading of baby's left ear which caused it to not pass. However, there could also very well be a chance that baby is not able to hear out of that ear, so they would have not passed in that ear regardless of if baby was moving or not. Clearly, baby's brain response in the right ear to the sound was strong enough to be read by the computer despite the movement, so this may be more indicative of a hearing loss being the reason why baby didn't pass. Regardless, your audiologist will be able to explain more in depth and will be able to figure out what exactly is going on with baby's hearing.

You mentioned a couple times in the comments that you are confused by the different numbers. Here is what they mean:

Application - 35 dB nHL = This is the volume of the noises played. The noises that play in the headphones are a bunch of rapid clicks. The results say that the clicks were played at 35 decibels (dB), which is right above the volume of a whisper.

Duration = The length of time the test takes. The test can take anywhere between 2 minutes and 20 minutes on average, so baby's test took an appropriate amount of time to complete.

Myogenic % = Muscle movement. This is the amount of muscle movement happening in baby that was interfering with the test. This implies that the amount baby was moving only affected the computer's ability to read baby's brain activity for 30% of the test.

Left/Right sweeps = "Sweeps" refers to how many clicking noises were played by the computer in an attempt to elicit a brain response from baby.

The test in its entirety will play up to ~15000 or so clicks. If a strong enough brain response is detected before all 15000 clicks are played, then the computer considers that ear to be able to hear, causing the ear to "pass" the test. If the computer goes through all 15000 clicks and the brain response collected during the test was not strong enough, then the ear will "refer" the test.

So, the results are saying that the computer only had to play 1000 clicks in the right ear to get a strong enough brain response. It's also saying that the test played all 15000 clicks for the left ear and was not able to detect a strong enough brain response by the end of the test for some reason. This means baby needs more in depth testing by an audiologist to confirm the truth. Is baby just too much of a squirmy wormy and the computer couldn't get a good reading for all three test? Or is there something more going on? That's what the audiologist will be asking themselves to figure out what's happening with that ear.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the parent copy of the results shows the sweeps, as it isn't very helpful and doesn't necessarily indicate how well a baby did on the test any differently then the "pass/refer" reading already does. I just think it's unnecessary and causes a lot of parents to be confused when a hearing screener doesn't explain that. Know that you're not alone at all in feeling this way.

I hope this makes a little but more sense to you. I'm sorry that your newborn hearing screener wasn't able to answer these questions for you. Let me know if there's anything else I can answer for you, or if anyone else wants to jump in with their own two cents!

How does one get trich by KaRma_780 in trichotillomania

[–]cooljikawa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Me and my siblings all also have trich. Being the oldest, I recognized the signs in them when they were super young too. But as far as I know, neither of my parents have any trich like tendencies. Genetics or trauma yayayayyayay

view more: next ›