Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
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).
-
ItemVowel imitation task: results over time for 28 cochlear implant children under the age of eight years( 1995)With increasing numbers of implanted children under the age of 4 years, numerous researchers have reminded us of the need for valid, sensitive, and reliable tests of developing speech perception.1,2 In addition to studies of the efficacy of implanted prostheses, there is a need to investigate the many variables that influence children's communicative performance, such as changes in speech-coding strategy, updated speech-processing systems, the effects of various training regimens, and the selection of educational and communication modes.
-
ItemSpeech perception in children using the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy( 1995)The Speak speech-processing strategy, developed by the University of Melbourne and commercialized by Cochlear Pty Limited for use in the new Spectra 22 speech processor, has been shown to provide improved speech perception for adults in both quiet and noisy situations. The present study evaluated the ability of children experienced in the use of the Multipeak (Mpeak) speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Minisystem-22 cochlear implant) to adapt to and benefit from the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Spectra 22 speech processor). Twelve children were assessed using Mpeak and Speak over a period of 8 months. All of the children had over 1 year's previous experience with Mpeak, and all were able to score significantly on open-set word and sentence tests using the cochlear implant alone. Children were assessed with both live-voice and recorded speech materials, including Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant monosyllabic words and Speech Intelligibility Test sentences. Assessments were made in both quiet and in noise. Assessments were made at 3-week intervals to investigate the ability of the children to adapt to the new speech-processing strategy. For most of the children, a significant advantage was evident when using the Speak strategy as compared with Mpeak. For 4 of the children, there was no decrement in speech perception scores immediately following fitting with Speak. Eight of the children showed a small (10% to 20%) decrement in speech perception scores for between 3 and 6 weeks following the changeover to Speak. After 24 weeks' experience with Speak, 11 of the children had shown a steady increase in speech perception scores, with final Speak scores higher than for Mpeak. Only 1 child showed a significant decrement in speech perception with Speak, which did not recover to original Mpeak levels.
-
ItemSpeech perception, production and language results in a group of children using the 22-electrode cochlear implant( 1992)Five children out of a group of nine (aged 5.5 to 19.9 years) implanted with the 22-electrode cochlear implant (Cochlear Ply. Ltd.) have achieved substantial scores on open-set speech tests using hearing without lipreading. Phoneme scores for monosyllabic words ranged from 40% to 72%. Word scores in sentences ranged from 26% to 74%. Four of these five children were implanted during preadolescence. The fifth child, who had a progressive loss and was implanted during adolescence after a short period of very profound deafness, scored highest on all speech perception tests. The remaining four children who did not demonstrate open-set recognition were implanted during adolescence after a long duration of profound deafness. Post-operative performance on closed-set speech perception tests was better than pre-operative performance for all children. Improvements in speech and language assessments were also noted. These improvements tended to be greater for the younger children. The results are discussed with reference to variables which may contribute to successful implant use: such as age at onset, duration of profound hearing loss, age at implantation, aetiology, educational program, and the type of training provided.