Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemImproved sound processing for cochlear implants( 2002)Four signal processing schemes currently under development aim to improve the perception of sounds/ especially speech, for children and adults using the Nucleus cochlear implant system. The schemes are (1) fast-acting input-signal compression, (2) Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimisation (ADRO), (3) TESM, a scheme that emphasises transients in signals, and (4) DRSP, a strategy that applies different stimulation rates to selected sets of electrodes.
-
ItemHow much residual hearing is too much?( 2000)The value of cochlear implants as an established clinical option for profoundly hearing-impaired adults and children has been supported by significant research results over a number of years (U.S. National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement 1995). As a direct consequence of the level of benefits shown for cochlear implant users on measures of speech perception, research has focused on investigating whether severely hearing impaired adults and children would be suitable candidates for cochlear implantation. I n considering the candidature of any individual, both medical and audiological suitability are investigated. The primary concern is to establish to what degree the patient would benefit from use of the cochlear implant.
-
ItemResults of multichannel cochlear implantation in very young children [Abstract]( 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.
-
ItemSpeech perception results for implanted children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing [Abstract]( 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.
-
ItemSpeech perception results for the nucleus multiple channel cochlear implant in children and adults with residual hearing [Abstract]( 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.
-
ItemSpeech perception benefits for implanted children with preoperative residual hearing [Abstract]( 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.
-
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.