Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemResearch in auditory training(Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 1994)Speech perception and communication can improve as a result of experience, and auditory training is one way of providing experiences that may be beneficial. One of the most important factors influencing the effectiveness of auditory training is the amount of experience the client already has. Other factors include the severity of the hearing loss, the sensory device used, the environment, personal qualities of the client and clinician, the type of training, and the type of evaluation used. Despite a long history of clinical practice, the effects of these factors have been investigated in few controlled studies. Even in special cases where training has an obvious role, such as adults using cochlear implants, there has been little objective comparison of alternative training methods. One reason for this is the difficulty of carrying out definitive experiments that measure changes in performance over time in the presence of many confounding variables. These variables may also help to explain the apparently contradictory results that can be found in the literature on auditory training and in the diverse points of view expressed by practicing clinicians. Issues and methods appropriate for research in auditory training among adult clients are discussed with reference to the needs of modem clinical practice.
-
ItemSpeech recognition in adults with a severe hearing impairment [Abstract]( 1998)Adults with a severe hearing impairment comprise between 11.0% and 13.5% of the hearing-impaired population. From the perspective of audiological rehabilitation, understanding their difficulties offers many challenges. To investigate this population, a detailed investigation of the speech recognition of adults with severe hearing loss (N = 34) was conducted at The University of Melbourne. For the purposes of this study severe hearing impairment was defined as an average loss in the better ear of between 61 and 100 dB HL. Each participant took part in a series of speech recognition tasks while wearing their currently fitted hearing aids. The assessments included closed-set tests of consonant recognition and vowel recognition, combined with open-set tests of consonant recognition and vowel recognition, combined with open-set tests of monosyllabic word recognition, sentence recognition and the Connected Speech Test version 2 (CSTv2). Tests at the sentence level were also conducted in background noise (four-talkers superimposed) to replicate environments more typical of everyday listening conditions. Investigation of the results indicated a wide variability in performance between the participants on each of the speech perception measures. There were, however, some general trends which could be observed. As expected vowels were generally well perceived compared with consonants. Monosyllabic word recognition scores for the participants could be predicted from the segmental tests with an allowance for lexical effects. Scores for sentences presented in quiet showed additional linguistic effects and a significant decrease (p < .05) in performance with the addition of background noise. Additionally, the CSTv2 provided further insights into speech perception processes through the addition of further facilitative context. Discussion will also take place regarding the processes involved in speech perception and whether this population, despite severe auditory handicap are able to utilise restricted auditory input for higher level lexical processes.