Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemArticulation accuracy of children using an electrotactile speech processor( 1995)Objective: Use of wearable tactile speech perception devices is suggested to help overcome the difficulties in speech production resulting from severe and profound hearing impairment in children. This suggestion is based on the assumption that subjects can use tactile input in isolation, or in combination with information from residual aided hearing, to monitor and modify their speech. The present study evaluated the benefits to articulation provided through use of a multichannel electrotactile device (“Tickle Talker™”). Design: Six profoundly hearing-impaired children were videotaped speaking with the Tickle Talker on and with the Tickle Talker off during conversations with their audiologist. Five of the subjects also wore their binaural hearing aids during all recorded conversations. The number of vowels, consonants, and overall phonemes correctly articulated by each child in the two conditions were compared. Results: One subject improved articulation of initial consonants and initial phonemes; one subject improved articulation of total vowels, total consonants, initial consonants, total phonemes, and initial phonemes; and a third subject improved articulation of total vowels and medial phonemes. Conclusions: Use of on-line tactile feedback from the Tickle Talker may benefit the articulation accuracy of some children, and the device may therefore be suitable to use with children who have not responded to more traditional speech training techniques.
-
ItemThe progress of children using the multichannel cochlear implant in Melbourne( 1995)Multi-channel cochlear implantation in children began in Australia in 1985 and there are now close to 4000 profoundly deaf children and adolescents using the Australian implant system around the world. The aim of the implant procedure is to provide adequate hearing for speech and language development through auditory input. This contrasts with the situation for adults with acquired deafness where the cochlear implant aims to restore hearing for someone with well-developed auditory processing and language skills. As with adults, results vary over a wide range for children using the Multi-channel implant. Many factors have been suggested that may contribute to differences in speech perception for implanted children. In an attempt to better understand these factors, the speech perception results for children implanted in Melbourne were reviewed and subjected to statistical analysis. This has indicated that the amount of experience with the implant and the length of sensory deprivation are strongly correlated with perceptual results. This means that younger children are likely to perform better with an implant and that a number of years of experience are required for children to reach their full potential. The results have also indicated that educational placement and management play a crucial role in children reaching their potential. Overall, 60% of the children and adolescents in the study have reached a level of open-set speech understanding using the cochlear implant without lipreading.
-
ItemCochlear implants in children: the value of cochleostomy seals in the prevention of labyrinthitis following pneumococcal otitis media( 1995)Cochlea implantation at an early age is important in rehabilitating profoundly hearing impaired children. Given the incidence of pneumococcal otitis media in young children, there has been concern that cochlear implantation could increase the possibility of otitis media, leading to labyrinthitis in this age group. Clinical experience has not indicated an increase in the frequency of otitis media and labyrinthitis in implanted adults or children over two years. However, labyrinthitis has occurred in implanted animals with otitis media. In order to assess the impact of cochlear implants on the occurrence of labyrinthitis, pneumococcal otitis media was induced in 21 kittens. Thirty-two kitten cochleas were implanted, of which 9 had a fascial graft and 9 a Gelfoam® graft. Nine control cochleas were unimplanted. Labyrinthitis occurred in 44% of unimplanted controls. 50% of implanted ungrafted cochleas, and 6% of implanted grafted cochleas. There was no statistically significant difference between the incidence of labyrinthitis in the implanted cochleas and the unimplanted controls. However there was a statistically significant difference between the ungrafted and grafted cochleas, but not between the two types of graft.
-
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).
-
ItemSpeech self-monitoring by children using an electrotactile speech processor( 1995)For the profoundly and severely-to-profoundly hearing impaired child, lipreading and hearing aids are not always sufficient to develop adequate speech perception and production skills. Tactile devices have been investigated as a source of supplementary speech information, with most research focusing on speech perception benefits. However, speech production difficulties are also a major issue for these children, and research into tactile devices should include investigation of the option to use them as speech production aids. This paper will present the results from an initial examination of the suitability of one tactile device for speech production monitoring.
-
ItemCochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception( 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.
-
ItemCochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: speech perception( 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.