Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemSpeech perception results for children with implants with different levels of preoperative residual hearing( 1997)Objective: Many reports have established that hearing-impaired children using the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant may show both significant benefits to lipreading and significant scores on open-set words and sentences using electrical stimulation only. These findings have raised questions about whether severely or severely-to-profoundly deaf children should be candidates for cochlear implants. To study this question, postoperative results for implanted children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing were evaluated in terms of speech perception benefits. Study Design/Setting: A retrospective study of the first 117 children, sequentially, to undergo implantation in the Melbourne and Sydney Cochlear Implant Clinics was undertaken. All children had been assessed by and received their implants in a tertiary referral centre. Main Outcome Measures: To assess aided residual hearing, the children were grouped into four categories of hearing on the basis of their aided residual hearing thresholds measured preoperatively. To assess benefits, the scores of children on standard speech perception tests were reviewed. As different tests were used for children with different ages and language skills, children were grouped into categories according to the level of postoperative speech perception benefit. Results: The results showed that children in the higher categories of aided preoperative residual hearing showed significant scores on open-set word and sentence perception tests using the implant alone. For children in lower categories of aided residual hearing, results were variable within the groups. More than 90% of children with implants with aided residual hearing thresholds in the speech range above I kHz achieved open-set understanding of words and sentences. Conclusion: While the results of this preliminary study confirm previous findings of differential outcomes for children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing, they suggest that children with severe to profound hearing impairments should be considered for cochlear implantation.
-
ItemA clinical report on speech production of cochlear implant users( 1995)Objective: The aim was to assess articulation and speech intelligibility over time in a group of cochlear implant users implanted at 8 yr or over. The hypothesis was that the postoperative speech production performance would be greater than the preoperative performance. Design: A test of intelligibility using sentences and an articulation test measuring non-imitative elicited speech were administered to 11 and 10 subjects, respectively, who were implanted with the 22-electrode cochlear implant. Nine subjects received both tests. Age at implantation ranged from 8 yr to 20 yr and implant use ranged from 1 yr to 4 yr 5 mo. Results: For both the intelligibility and articulation tests roughly half of the subjects showed significant improvements over time and group mean postoperative performance significantly exceeded preoperative performance. Improvements occurred for front, middle, and back consonants; for stops, fricatives, and glides and for voiceless and voiced consonants. Conclusions: Despite being deprived of acoustic speech information for many childhood years, roughly half of the patients assessed showed significant gains in speech intelligibility and articulation postimplantation. The lack of a control group of non-implanted patients means that we cannot separate out the influence of the implant on speech production from other influences such as training and tactile-kinaesthetic feedback.
-
ItemThe progress of children using the multichannel cochlear implant in Melbourne( 1995)Multi-channel cochlear implantation in children began in Australia in 1985 and there are now close to 4000 profoundly deaf children and adolescents using the Australian implant system around the world. The aim of the implant procedure is to provide adequate hearing for speech and language development through auditory input. This contrasts with the situation for adults with acquired deafness where the cochlear implant aims to restore hearing for someone with well-developed auditory processing and language skills. As with adults, results vary over a wide range for children using the Multi-channel implant. Many factors have been suggested that may contribute to differences in speech perception for implanted children. In an attempt to better understand these factors, the speech perception results for children implanted in Melbourne were reviewed and subjected to statistical analysis. This has indicated that the amount of experience with the implant and the length of sensory deprivation are strongly correlated with perceptual results. This means that younger children are likely to perform better with an implant and that a number of years of experience are required for children to reach their full potential. The results have also indicated that educational placement and management play a crucial role in children reaching their potential. Overall, 60% of the children and adolescents in the study have reached a level of open-set speech understanding using the cochlear implant without lipreading.
-
ItemSpeech perception in children using the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy( 1995)The Speak speech-processing strategy, developed by the University of Melbourne and commercialized by Cochlear Pty Limited for use in the new Spectra 22 speech processor, has been shown to provide improved speech perception for adults in both quiet and noisy situations. The present study evaluated the ability of children experienced in the use of the Multipeak (Mpeak) speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Minisystem-22 cochlear implant) to adapt to and benefit from the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Spectra 22 speech processor). Twelve children were assessed using Mpeak and Speak over a period of 8 months. All of the children had over 1 year's previous experience with Mpeak, and all were able to score significantly on open-set word and sentence tests using the cochlear implant alone. Children were assessed with both live-voice and recorded speech materials, including Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant monosyllabic words and Speech Intelligibility Test sentences. Assessments were made in both quiet and in noise. Assessments were made at 3-week intervals to investigate the ability of the children to adapt to the new speech-processing strategy. For most of the children, a significant advantage was evident when using the Speak strategy as compared with Mpeak. For 4 of the children, there was no decrement in speech perception scores immediately following fitting with Speak. Eight of the children showed a small (10% to 20%) decrement in speech perception scores for between 3 and 6 weeks following the changeover to Speak. After 24 weeks' experience with Speak, 11 of the children had shown a steady increase in speech perception scores, with final Speak scores higher than for Mpeak. Only 1 child showed a significant decrement in speech perception with Speak, which did not recover to original Mpeak levels.