Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemA comparison of a new prototype Tickle Talker with a Tactaid 7( 2001)This study compared the speech perception enhancement provided by two multichannel tactile aids: a new version of the Tickle TalkerT™ and the Tactaid 7. The subjects' impression of benefit was also examined. In an AB pattern, six adults with hearing impairment used each device daily for approximately 18 weeks and attended 12 training sessions. When tactile information was provided, the group demonstrated a significant enhancement for the perception of words (mean 17.2%) and phonemes (mean 12.9%) in monosyllabic word lists, words in sentences (mean 14.2%) and speech tracking (mean 7.7 wpm). The Tactaid 7 provided a significantly greater enhancement for the perception of words (21 % versus 13.4%), phonemes (16.7% versus 9.1%) and some speech features in monosyllabic word lists. Subjective ratings were slightly higher for the Tactaid 7, and four subjects preferred this device. Either device may be suitable for those not able or willing to have a cochlear implant.
-
ItemComparative performance of children using the cochlear 22-channel implant and 8-channel 'Tickle Talker'( 1992)Direct comparison of "Tickle Talker" and Cochlear Implant users is problematic, due to difficulties in matching groups of children for hearing loss, age, duration of deafness, speech perception and language skills, and educational placement. However, two studies were undertaken to compare and contrast potential benefits available from these two devices. In the first study, a number of children from one educational setting were evaluated over a six month period. Half of the children used the multiple channel cochlear implant, while the other half used the multiple channel "Tickle Talker". The number of training sessions, clinicians involved, type of training provided, and overall management philosophy were identical for both devices. Comparison of progress of these two groups of children demonstrates that both devices are effective in improving' communication. However, differences were found with the tactile device being more limited in information provided and speech perception benefits. In the second study, two children who have used both devices were evaluated. These two children initially used the ''Tickle Talker" for periods up to two years, and subsequently had a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Similar habilitation was provided to these children with both devices, and measures of speech perception were taken at similar time periods. Results for one of the children, a prelinguistically deafened adolescent, already show similar benefits in terms of supplementation of lipreading for both devices. However, this patient has also shown some open-set word and sentence perception using the implant-alone. To date, this level of performance has not been achieved with the ''Tickle Talker". The results of these studies suggest a role for a multiple channel tactile device in a cochlear implant clinic as a training device for evaluating the ability of adults or children to integrate speech information presented through different sensory modalities. This could facilitate pre-implant evaluation of the potential for children to benefit from added speech information, which is often difficult to evaluate in congenitally deaf children.