Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
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.
-
ItemThe development of speech perception in children using cochlear implants: effects of etiologic factors and delayed milestones( 2000)Hypothesis: Speech perception outcomes for cochlear implantation of children vary over a wide range, and it is hypothesized that central pathologic states associated with certain causes of hearing impairment account for a substantial part of the variance. Study Design: A retrospective analysis was carried out to ascertain the relationships between speech perception, etiologic factors, and central pathologic states as indicated by preoperative delayed motor milestones and/or cognitive delays. Setting: Data were obtained from the pre-and postoperative records of patients attending a hospital cochlear implant clinic. Patients: Results for 75 consecutive patients up to age 5 years who underwent implantation were included in the study. Intervention: Patients received a 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis and were seen by the clinic for regular tune-up and assessments. Home-and school-based habilitation was recommended by the clinic. Main Outcome Measures: Speech perception measures were classified on a five-point scale to allow for different evaluation procedures at different ages and developmental stages. Results: The incidence of motor and cognitive delays were fairly evenly spread across etiologic factors, except for cytomegalovirus, which had a much higher than average incidence. Children with motor and/or cognitive delays were significantly slower than other children in the development of speech perception skills after implantation. Etiologic factors did not have a statistically significant effect on speech perception outcome. Conclusions: It is likely that central pathologic states account for a substantial part of the variance among children using cochlear implants. Specific indicators of central pathologic states should be used to assess a child's prognosis in preference to less specific information based on etiologic factors alone.
-
ItemPotential and limitations of cochlear implants in children( 1995)Multiple-channel cochlear implants have been in use with children and adolescents for 8 years. The speech perception, speech production, and language of many of these children has been investigated in some detail.l-4 There have been many predictions about factors that may affect the performance of children with implants. For instance, it has been suggested that children with a congenital loss of hearing would not have the same potential to benefit from a cochlear implant as those with an acquired loss. Similarly, it has been suggested that younger children are likely to gain more benefit from a cochlear implant because of the effect of various critical ages for language learning.5 As more results have become available, it has been our observation that the performance of any particular child with a cochlear implant does not appear to follow well-defined rules, and that generalizations about the potential of certain groups of children are likely to encounter many exceptions. We now have a large quantity of results for children using cochlear implants, and it may be possible to determine some of the factors that have a significant effect on performance. This paper will attempt to identify some of these factors by reviewing speech perception results for 100 children implanted with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear prosthesis in Australia and speech perception results for adult patients. This analysis will use an "information processing" model of a child using a cochlear implant. That is, we will assume that a child will benefit from a cochlear implant in terms of speech perception, production, and language development, if he or she receives a maximal amount of auditory information from the environment, and is able to process this information successfully. This model divides potential limiting or predictive factors into those that affect the information presented to the auditory system (eg, implant technology, surviving auditory neurons) and those that affect the processing of this information (eg, development of central auditory pathways, amount and consistency of auditory input).
-
ItemCochlear implants for congenitally deaf adolescents: is open-set speech perception a realistic expectation?( 1994)The prognosis for benefit from use of cochlear implants in congenitally deaf adolescents, who have a long duration of profound deafness prior to implantation, has typically been low. Speech perception results for two congenitally deaf patients implanted as adolescents at the University of Melbourne/Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital Clinic show that, after 12 months of experience, both patients had significant open-set speech discrimination scores without lipreading. These results suggest that although benefits may in general be low for congenitally deaf adolescents, individuals may attain significant benefits to speech perception after a short period of experience. Prospective patients from this group should therefore be considered on an individual basis with regard to prognosis for benefit from cochlear implantation.