Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15
-
ItemContributing factors to improved speech perception in children using the nucleus 22-channel cochlear prosthesis( 1997)It has been established that use of multiple-channel intracochlear implants can significantly improve speech perception for postlinguistically deafened adults. In the development of the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant, there have been significant developments in speech processing strategies, providing additional benefits to speech perception for users. This has recently culminated in the release of the Speak speech processing strategy, developed from research at the University of Melbourne. The Speak strategy employs 20 programmable bandpass filters which are scanned at an adaptive rate, with the largest outputs of these filters presented to up to ten stimulation channels along the electrode array. Comparative studies of the Speak processing strategy (in the Nucleus Spectra-22 speech processor), with the previously-used Multipeak (Multipeak) speech processing strategy (in the Minisystem-22 speech processor), with profoundly deaf adult cochlear implant users have shown that the Speak processing strategy provides a significant benefit to adult users both in quiet situations and particularly in the presence of background noise. Since the first implantation of the Nucleus device in a profoundly hearing-impaired child in Melbourne in 1985, there has been a rapid growth in the number of children using this device. Studies of cochlear implant benefits for children using the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant have also shown that children can obtain significant benefits to speech perception, speech production and language, including open-set understanding of words and sentences using the cochlear implant alone. In evaluating contributing factors to speech perception benefits available for children, four specific factors are important to investigate: (1) earlier implantation -resulting from earlier detection of deafness; (2) improved hardware and surgical techniques -allowing implantation in infants; (3) improved speech processing, and (4) improved habilitation techniques. Results reported previously have been recorded primarily for children using the Multipeak strategy implemented in the MSP speech processor. While it is important to evaluate the factors which might contribute to improvements in speech perception benefits, an important question is the effect of improved speech processing strategy, since this will determine what is perceived through the device. Given that adult patients changing to the Spectra speech processor had also shown improved perception in noisy situations, and the fact that children are in general in noisy environments in the classroom setting for a large proportion of their day, it was of obvious interest to evaluate the potential for benefit in poor signal-to-noise ratios from use of the Speak processing strategy and from specific training in the ability to perceive in background noise. The study was aimed at evaluating whether children who were experienced in use of the Multipeak speech processing strategy would be able to changeover to the new Speak processing strategy, which provides a subjectively different output. Secondly, the study aimed to evaluate the benefits which might accrue to children from use of controlled habilitation in background noise.
-
ItemSpeech perception results for children with implants with different levels of preoperative residual hearing( 1997)Objective: 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 questions about whether severely or severely-to-profoundly deaf children should be candidates for cochlear implants. To study this question, postoperative results for implanted children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing were evaluated in terms of speech perception benefits. Study Design/Setting: A retrospective study of the first 117 children, sequentially, to undergo implantation in the Melbourne and Sydney Cochlear Implant Clinics was undertaken. All children had been assessed by and received their implants in a tertiary referral centre. Main Outcome Measures: To assess aided residual hearing, the children were grouped into four categories of hearing on the basis of their aided residual hearing thresholds measured preoperatively. To assess benefits, the scores of children on standard speech perception tests were reviewed. As different tests were used for children with different ages and language skills, children were grouped into categories according to the level of postoperative speech perception benefit. Results: The results showed that children in the higher categories of aided preoperative residual hearing showed significant scores on open-set word and sentence perception tests using the implant alone. For children in lower categories of aided residual hearing, results were variable within the groups. More than 90% of children with implants with aided residual hearing thresholds in the speech range above I kHz achieved open-set understanding of words and sentences. Conclusion: While the results of this preliminary study confirm previous findings of differential outcomes for children with different levels of preoperative residual hearing, they suggest that children with severe to profound hearing impairments should be considered for cochlear implantation.
-
ItemIntroduction(Singular Publishing, 1997)From the time single-channel cochlear implants were first implanted in children in the early 1980s in Los Angeles (Laxford et al 1987) closely followed in 1985 by the multiple-channel cochlear implant in Melbourne (Clark et al 1987a, 1987b) there has been a considerable expansion in the work to apply the multiple-channel cochlear implant to infants and young children.
-
ItemComponents of a rehabilitation programme for young children using the multichannel cochlear implant(Whurr, 1996)Rehabilitation with young hearing-impaired children may be defined as a teaching; learning process where the role of the clinician is to facilitate acquisition of listening, speech and language in a normal developmental order. This is often referred to as habilitation. It differs from rehabilitation for adults, which is the process by which lost communication skills are reacquired. It is worth discussing the role of the cochlear implant as a tool in this process. For the adult with acquired hearing loss, the cochlear implant might be expected, in part, to facilitate rehabilitation by restoring the auditory sense. The aim is to facilitate speech reception and provide the adult with a speech feedback loop. For a child receiving the cochlear implant, the aims are more complex. The device needs to provide speech perception abilities to facilitate the development of the entire linguistic system, to develop a range of speech sounds, to enable speech monitoring via auditory feedback and to access shared knowledge of the world. (From Introduction)
-
ItemContinuing improvements in speech processing for adult cochlear implant patients( 1995)The Cochlear 22-channel cochlear implant has employed a succession of improved speech-processing strategies since its first use in an adult patient in Melbourne in 1982. 1 The first patients received the F0F2 coding strategy developed by the University of Melbourne, in the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP). The F0F2 coding scheme presented the implant user with three acoustic features of speech. These were 1) the amplitude of the waveform, presented as the amount of current charge, 2) fundamental frequency (F0) or voice pitch, presented as rate of biphasic pulsatile stimulation, and 3) the spectral range of the second formant frequency (F2), which was represented by varying the site of stimulation along the electrode array.
-
ItemWhat factors contribute to successful outcomes for children using cochlear implants( 2000)Long term speech perception data has been collected for 100 children using the Nucleus multichannel cochlear prosthesis in Melbourne. Scores on a number of different assessments are available at approximately six month intervals following implantation for these children. The group represents an unselected sample of cochlear implant users, as all children were included if they had sufficient developmental skills to perform formal speech perception tests. Information was also collected on each child regarding type of hearing loss, age of onset of profound hearing loss, duration of profound hearing loss, age at implantation, pre and post-implant communication mode, developmental delay, speech processing strategy and length of experience with implant use.
-
ItemHearing levels and speech perception prior to cochlear implantation - are they predictive of outcomes for adult implant users?( 2000)As the speech perception results obtained for adults using multichannel cochlear implants have improved, people with a wider range of hearing losses are now considering implantation. In the mid-1980s, most adults undergoing cochlear implantation had little or no residual hearing. This made selection and counselling relatively straightforward as any level of hearing obtained through use of the cochlear implant could be considered as a benefit in such cases. Most patients evaluated for implantation today have some degree of useful residual hearing, and may be reliant on this hearing to varying degrees in their everyday life. In essence, they have something to lose if their postoperative performance is poor. In counselling these patients, it would be most helpful to have reliable predictors of postoperative performance. A number of factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, congenital profound hearing loss, and certain aetiologies (eg, head injury) have shown significant links with outcomes in previous studies.
-
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.
-
ItemSpeech perception & indirect benefits for severely hearing impaired children using cochlear implants [Abstract]( 1998)The benefits to speech perception, speech production, communication, and quality of life were investigated for severely hearing impaired children using cochlear implants and hearing aids. For the youngest children, assessments of psychological status, and use of a battery of cognitive and language tests were important factors in determining performance benefits prior to the child developing speech. For older children, the effects of increased one-to-one oral habilitation, and systematic encouragement of parental involvement were also investigated. Results suggested that parental support for consistent device use was an important factor in producing outcomes. Children with residual hearing were more likely to achieve open-set perception. Each child was also assessed for changes in quality of life, through use of a standardized health utility instrument. Results from the group were collated, and teamed with a costing assessment for the procedure, which allowed a complete cost-utility analysis to be completed. Results suggested that indirect benefits, such as the effects on speech production, usual activities, lower concentration, and less distress were ranked as more important than changes to hearing in a number of the children. Costs per QALY were consistent with those reported in the literature, and suggested that the cochlear implant is highly cost-effective as a medical technology.
-
ItemPerformance benefits and costs for children using cochlear implants and hearing aids [Abstract]( 1998)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 which has clearly established the benefits available (U.S. National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement 1995). Benefit has traditionally been considered as the direct impact of the cochlear implant procedure on speech perception, or in the case of children, on the use of that auditory information to develop understandable speech and to acquire a knowledge of language. As a consequence of continuing research to improve hardware and speech processing strategies, mean scores on open-set tests of monosyllables or sentence materials for implanted adults using the cochlear implant alone without lipreading have continued to show an upwards trend. In response to the increased mean scores in quiet, perception tests in background noise are now being used as a more accurate direct measure of the potential benefits of cochlear implants to severely-to-profoundly hearing-impaired candidates. Consideration should also be given to indirect benefits, such as reduction in the stress of listening and lipreading, improved performance at work, enhanced opportunity to maintain speech, or in children to develop speech which is understandable to the general community, and the social effects of reducing the isolating effects of profound deafness. Measurement of indirect benefit can be combined with an analysis of the costs of the procedure, enabling evaluation of the implant procedure from a cost-utility standpoint, and a comparison of outcomes using other technologies such as hearing aids. This study will present data on direct and indirect benefits for hearing-impaired children using Nucleus cochlear implant systems, and compare this data with benefits shown for similarly hearing impaired children using hearing aids. The significance of these results to cost-effective delivery of services will be discussed.