Graeme Clark Collection

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the Cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis
    Busby, P. A. ; Whitford, L. A. ; Blamey, P. J. ; Richardson, L. M. ; Clark, Graeme M. ( 1994)
    Abstract not available due to copyright.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Cochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception
    Dawson, Pam. W ; Blamey, Peter J. ; Rowland, Louise C. ; Dettman, Shani J. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Busby, Peter A. ; Brown, Alison M. ; Dowell, Richard C. ; Rickards, Field W. ( 1992)
    A group of 10 children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults were implanted with the 22-electrode cochlear implant (Cochlear Pty Ltd) at the University of Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic and have used the prosthesis for periods from 12 to 65 months. Postoperative performance on the majority of closed-set speech perception tests was significantly greater than chance, and significantly better than preoperative performance for all of the patients. Five of the children have achieved substantial scores on open-set speech tests using hearing without lipreading. Phoneme scores in monosyllabic words ranged from 30% to 72%; word scores in sentences ranged from 26% to 74%. Four of these 5 children were implanted during preadolescence (aged 5:5 to 10:2 years) and the fifth, who had a progressive loss, was implanted during adolescence (aged 14:8 years). The duration of profound deafness before implantation varied from 2 to 8 years. Improvements were also noted over postoperative data collection times for the younger children. The remaining 5 patients who did not demonstrate open-set recognition were implanted after a longer duration of profound deafness (aged 13:11 to 20:1 years). The results are discussed with reference to variables that may affect implant performance, such as age at onset of loss, duration of profound loss, age at implantation, and duration of implantation. They are compared with results for similar groups of children using hearing aids and cochlear implants.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The development of the Melbourne/Cochlear multiple-channel cochlear implant for profoundly deaf children
    Clark, Graeme M. ; Busby, Peter A. ; Dowell, Richard C. ; Dawson, Pamella W. ; Pyman, Brian C. ; Webb, Robert L. ; Staller, Steven J. ; Beiter, Anne L. ; Brimacombe, Judith A. ( 1992)
    In 1978-79, a speech processing strategy which extracted the voicing (FO) and second formant (F2) frequencies and presented these as rate and place of stimulation respectively to residual auditory nerve fibres was developed for the University of Melbourne's prototype multiple-channel receiver-stimulator (Clark et aI1977, Clark et a11978, Tong et aI1980). This speech processing strategy was shown to provide post linguistically deaf adults with some open-set speech comprehension using electrical stimulation alone, and considerable help when used in combination with lipreading (Clark et al 1981).
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Psychophysical studies using a multiple-electrode cochlear implant in patients who were deafened early in life.
    Busby, P. A. ; Tong, Y. C. ; Clark, Graeme M. ( 1992)
    Psychophysical studies were conducted on 10 cochlear implant patients, between 5 and 23 years of age at the time of surgery, who were deafened prior to 4 years of age. The multiple-electrode prosthesis manufactured by Cochlear Ltd. was used. Identification studies, the recognition of 2-4 stimuli after some training, were conducted on 3 of the 10 patients. For currentlevel and repetition rate identification, performance was comparable to that observed for postlingual adult patients. For electrode position identification, however, performance was much poorer than that observed for postlingual adults. In general, the difference limens for current level, repetition rate and duration, and the gap detection thresholds were similar to those observed for postlingual adults. For 3 patients whose etiology was Usher's syndrome, the repetition rate limens at higher rates were larger than those of the other patients. The limens for electrode position, measured in a discrimination task, were 1-3 electrodes for most patients. However, for 3 patients, limens of 6-10 electrodes were recorded. For numerosity judgements, the counting of stimuli in a temporal series as a function of the rate of presentation, the patients were less successful at counting for rates of 3-8/s than for lower rates (1-2/s).
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Cochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception
    Dawson, Pam W. ; Blamey, Peter J. ; Rowland, Louise C. ; Dettman, Shani J. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Busby, Peter A. ; Brown, Alison M. ; Dowell, Richard C. ; Rickards, Field W. ( 1992)
    A group of 10 children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults were implanted with the 22-electrode cochlear implant (Cochlear Ply Ltd) at the University of Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic and have used the prosthesis for periods from 12 to 65 months. Postoperative performance on the majority of closed-set speech perception tests was significantly greater than chance, and significantly better than preoperative performance for all of the patients. Five of the children have achieved substantial scores on open-set speech tests using hearing without lipreading. Phoneme scores in monosyllabic words ranged from 30% to 72%; word scores in sentences ranged from 26% to 74%. Four of these 5 children were implanted during preadolescence (aged 5:5 to 10:2 years) and the fifth, who had a progressive loss, was implanted during adolescence (aged 14:8 years). The duration of profound deafness before implantation varied from 2 to 8 years. Improvements were also noted over postoperative data collection times for the younger children. The remaining 5 patients who did not demonstrate open-set recognition were implanted after a longer duration of profound deafness (aged 13:11to 20:1 years). The results are discussed with reference to variables that may affect implant performance, such as age at onset of loss, duration of profound loss, age at implantation, and duration of implantation. They are compared with results for similar groups of children using hearing aids and cochlear implants.