Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemA multiple-channel cochlear implant: an evaluation using nonsense syllables( 1981)A study using nonsense syllables has shown that a multiple-channel cochlear implant with speech processor is effective in providing information about, voicing and manner and to a lesser extent place distinctions. These distinctions supplement lipreading cues. Furthermore, the average percentage improvements in overall identification scores for multiple-channel electrical stimulation and lipreading compared to lipreading alone were 71% for a laboratory-based speech processor and 122 % for a wearable unit.
-
ItemA multiple-channel cochlear implant: an evaluation using an open-set word test( 1981)Multiple-channel electrical stimulation of the hearing nerve in conjunction with speech reading has helped two post-lingually deaf patients with total hearing losses understand running speech in every day situations. This has been confirmed using open-set phonetically balanced word tests, where the patients achieved 60% and 40% scores with isolated-words and 80% and 73% for phonemes-in-isolated words. The tests also showed that the cochlear implant improved word recognition by a factor of four in one patient and two in another compared with speechreading alone. The speech processor used extracted the voicing frequency and energy and the frequency and energy of the dominant spectral peak in the mid-frequency range. The parameters for voicing determined the rate of stimulation for all electrodes, and the parameters for the dominant spectral peak in the midfrequency range determined the site of electrode stimulation and current level.
-
ItemA multiple-channel cochlear implant. An evaluation using closed-set spondaic words(Cambridge University Press, 1981)Two post-lingually deaf patients with total hearing losses have had help in communicating, using a multiple-channel cochlear implant(Tong et al., in press; Tong and Clark, 1980). Single-channel implants have also been shown to be of value (House et al., 1976; Fourcin et al., 1979). As the multiple-channel device, however, requires an intra-cochlear electrode array it was considered worthwhile comparing the closed-set spondaic word test results obtained from our patients with those from intra-cochlear single-channel implants (Bilger et al., 1977). Using the multiple-channel device speech was processed by extracting the voicing frequency and energy, and the frequency and energy of the dominant spectral peak in the mid-frequency range. The parameters for voicing determined the rate of stimulation for all electrodes, and the parameters for the dominant spectral peak in the mid-frequency range determined the site of electrode stimulation and current level. On the other hand, with the single-channel implant (House et al., 1976) the speech wave amplitude modulated a 16 kHz carrier frequency, and this in tum stimulated the auditory nerve.
-
ItemA multiple-channel cochlear implant: an evaluation using open-set CID sentences( 1981)A multiple-channel cochlear implant and speech processor have been used in two postlingually deaf adult patients with a total hearing loss, to enable them to perceive varying degrees of running speech. The results have been confirmed with open-set CID everyday sentence tests. Using the implant alone, the patients obtained 8% and 14% scores with pre-recorded material, and 34% and 36% scores for "live" presentations. This was equivalent to the perception of 35% of connected discourse. When the implant was used in conjunction with lipreading, improvements of 188% and 386% were obtained over lipreading alone, and the scores were 68% and 98% which were equivalent to the perception of 60% and 95% of connected discourse.