Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12
-
ItemA comparison of Tactaid II+ and Tactaid 7 use by adults with a profound hearing impairment( 1999)Objective: To evaluate and compare use of the Tactaid II+ and the Tactaid 7, in terms of speech perception, by adults with a hearing impairment. Design: Eight adults used one device daily for approximately 10 wk and attended seven training sessions. Performance was measured with tests of phonetic contrast perception, closed-set vowel and consonant identification, word and phoneme recognition in monosyllabic word lists, word recognition in sentences and speechtracking rate. A questionnaire was also administered. The protocol was repeated with the alternative device. Results: With each device, the group discriminated most phonetic contrasts at better-than-chance levels and demonstrated somewhat enhanced visual or auditory-visual perception when measured in terms of vowel identification, monosyllabic word recognition and speechtracking rate. An increase in speechtracking rate was also demonstrated for some individuals. Subjects generally reported little subjective improvement in speech perception and production, but were satisfied with the physical attributes of each device. Five of six subjects preferred the Tactaid 7. Conclusions: The Tactaid II+ and the Tactaid 7 provided suprasegmental and segmental information, enabling the group to discriminate phonetic contrasts and improve their perception of some speech materials. No consistent advantage was found for either device, thought most subjects preferred the Tactaid 7. Alternatives likely to provide a greater benefit to communication should be considered before Tactaid fitting.
-
ItemVowel imitation task: results over time for 28 cochlear implant children under the age of eight years( 1995)With increasing numbers of implanted children under the age of 4 years, numerous researchers have reminded us of the need for valid, sensitive, and reliable tests of developing speech perception.1,2 In addition to studies of the efficacy of implanted prostheses, there is a need to investigate the many variables that influence children's communicative performance, such as changes in speech-coding strategy, updated speech-processing systems, the effects of various training regimens, and the selection of educational and communication modes.
-
ItemSpeech perception, production and language results in a group of children using the 22-electrode cochlear implant( 1992)Five children out of a group of nine (aged 5.5 to 19.9 years) implanted with the 22-electrode cochlear implant (Cochlear Ply. Ltd.) have achieved substantial scores on open-set speech tests using hearing without lipreading. Phoneme scores for monosyllabic words ranged from 40% to 72%. Word scores in sentences ranged from 26% to 74%. Four of these five children were implanted during preadolescence. The fifth child, who had a progressive loss and was implanted during adolescence after a short period of very profound deafness, scored highest on all speech perception tests. The remaining four children who did not demonstrate open-set recognition were implanted during adolescence after a long duration of profound deafness. Post-operative performance on closed-set speech perception tests was better than pre-operative performance for all children. Improvements in speech and language assessments were also noted. These improvements tended to be greater for the younger children. The results are discussed with reference to variables which may contribute to successful implant use: such as age at onset, duration of profound hearing loss, age at implantation, aetiology, educational program, and the type of training provided.
-
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.
-
ItemPerception of multiple electrode stimulus patterns: implications for design of an electrotactile speech processor( 1991)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemPerception of sentences, words, and speech features by profoundly hearing-impaired children using a multichannel electrotactile speech processor( 1990)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemSpeech feature recognition by profoundly hearing impaired children using a multiple-channel electrotactile speech processor and aided residual hearing( 1990)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemSpeech feature recognition with an electrotactile speech processor( 1989)The performance of eight subjects was assessed on a closed-set tactual test battery to evaluate efficiency of the speech feature encoding strategy currently used in the University of Melbourne multichannel electrotactile speech processor. The test battery included twelve subtests of suprasegmental and segmental speech feature contrasts. Results showed that all subjects scored significantly above chance on suprasegmental features such as syllable number, stress and vowel length. In addition, seven of the eight subjects scored significantly above chance for vowel formant frequency discrimination. Scores for manner of articulation contrasts were more variable, with better performance for the higher frequency, longer duration fricatives and affricates. Scores for voicing contrasts suggested that improvements to the tactual coding of this feature could be achieved. The second study examined the contribution of the tactual input to consonant feature identification for subjects using the electrotactile aid in combination with either a low-pass filtered auditory input or different levels of aided residual hearing and lipreading. Results for four normally-hearing subjects showed increased voicing and manner identification scores with the addition of tactual input. Similar results were found for two hearing-impaired subjects, one using the tactual input in combination with lipreading and one using the tactual input in combination with aided residual hearing.
-
ItemSpeech perception studies using a multichannel electrotactile speech processor, residual hearing, and lipreading( 1989)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemSpeech perception using combinations of auditory, visual, and tactile information( 1989)Four normally-hearing subjects were trained and tested with all combinations of a highly-degraded auditory input, a visual input via lipreading, and a tactile input using a multichannel electrotactile speech processor. The speech perception of the subjects was assessed with closed sets of vowels, consonants, and multisyllabic words; with open sets of words and sentences, and with speech tracking. When the visual input was added to any combination of other inputs, a significant improvement occurred for every test. Similarly, the auditory input produced a significant improvement for all tests except closed-set vowel recognition. The tactile input produced scores that were significantly greater than chance in isolation, but combined less effectively with the other modalities. The addition of the tactile input did produce significant improvements for vowel recognition in the auditory-tactile condition, for consonant recognition in the auditory-tactile and visual-tactile conditions, and in open-set word recognition in the visual-tactile condition. Information transmission analysis of the features of vowels and consonants indicated that the information from auditory and visual inputs were integrated much more effectively than information from the tactile input. The less effective combination might be due to lack of training with the tactile input, or to more fundamental limitations in the processing of multimodal stimuli.