Graeme Clark Collection

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Continuing improvements in speech processing for adult cochlear implant patients
    Hollow, R. D. ; Dowell, R. C. ; Cowan, R. S. C. ; Skok, M. C. ; Pyman, B. C. ; Clark, Graeme M. ( 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.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Speech perception in children using the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy
    Cowan, R. S. C. ; Brown, C. ; Whitford, L. A. ; Galvin, K. L. ; Sarant, J. Z. ; Barker, E. J. ; Shaw, S. ; King, A. ; Skok, M. ; Seligman, P. M. ; Dowell, R. C. ; Everingham, C. ; Gibson, W. P. R. ; Clark, Graeme M. ( 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.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The development of the Melbourne/Cochlear multiple-channel cochlear implant for profoundly deaf children
    Clark, Graeme M. ; Busby, Peter A. ; Dowell, Richard C. ; Dawson, Pamella W. ; Pyman, Brian C. ; Webb, Robert L. ; Staller, Steven J. ; Beiter, Anne L. ; Brimacombe, Judith A. ( 1992)
    In 1978-79, a speech processing strategy which extracted the voicing (FO) and second formant (F2) frequencies and presented these as rate and place of stimulation respectively to residual auditory nerve fibres was developed for the University of Melbourne's prototype multiple-channel receiver-stimulator (Clark et aI1977, Clark et a11978, Tong et aI1980). This speech processing strategy was shown to provide post linguistically deaf adults with some open-set speech comprehension using electrical stimulation alone, and considerable help when used in combination with lipreading (Clark et al 1981).