Graeme Clark Collection

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/375

Filters

1992 - 1996 5
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Clark, Graeme × Author: Cowan, Robert × End date: 1999 × Start date: 1990 × Type: Conference Item × Subject: cochlear implants × Subject: otology ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Results of multichannel cochlear implantation in very young children [Abstract]
    Galvin, K. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; DETTMAN, SHANI ; Dowell, Richard C. ; Barker, E. J. ; Rance, G. ; Hollow, R. ; Cowan, R. ( 1995)
    Most researchers and clinicians working in the cochlear implant field have assumed that profoundly deaf children will have a better prognosis in terms of speech perception, speech production and language development, implanted at as young an age as possible. However, it has been difficult to gather direct evidence for this hypothesis due to the problems in assessing children under the age of five years with formal tests.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Speech perception results for implanted children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing [Abstract]
    Galvin, K.L. ; Rance, G. ; Larratt, M. ; Hollow, R. ; Herridge, S. ; Skok, M. ; Dowell, R.C. ; Pyman, B. ; Gibson, W.P.R. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Cowan, R. S. C. ; DelDot, J. ; Barker, E. J. ; Sarant, J. Z. ; Dettman, S. ; Pegg, P. ( 1996)
    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 suggestions that severely or severely-to-profoundly deaf children might benefit more from a cochlear implant than conventional amplification.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Speech perception results for the nucleus multiple channel cochlear implant in children and adults with residual hearing [Abstract]
    Brimacombe, J.A. ; Arndt, P.L. ; Menapace, C.M. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Cowan, R. S. C. ; Dowell, R. C. ; Shaw, S. ; Gibson, W. P. R. ; Staller, S. ( 1996)
    Speech perception results for profoundly deaf children and adults using advanced speech processing strategies for the Nucleus multiple-channel cochlear implant have continued to improve, and are now better than those reported in research with severely-to-profoundly hearing-impaired people using aided residual hearing.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Speech perception benefits for implanted children with preoperative residual hearing [Abstract]
    Hollow, R. ; Rance, G. ; Dowell, R.C. ; Pyman, B. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Cowan, R. S. C. ; Galvin, K. L. ; Barker, E. J. ; Sarant, J. Z. ; Dettman, S. ( 1995)
    Since the implantation of the first children with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear prosthesis in Melbourne in 1985, there has been rapid expansion in the number of implanted children world-wide. Improved surgical technique and experience in paediatric assessment and management have contributed to a trend to implant very young children. At the same time there has also been continuing development of improved speech processing strategies resulting in greater speech perception benefits.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Comparative performance of children using the cochlear 22-channel implant and 8-channel 'Tickle Talker'
    Cowan, Robert S. C. ; Sarant, S. J. ; Dettman, K. L ; Galvin, K. L. ; Blamey, P. J. ; Clark, Graeme M. ( 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.