Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemGeneralisation of tactile perceptual skills to new context following tactile-alone word recognition training with the Tickle Talker( 2000)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemThe effect of language knowledge on speech perception: what are we really assessing?( 1997)Objective: The authors examined whether open-set speech perception scores are limited by knowledge of vocabulary and syntax and further considered whether remediation of vocabulary and syntax will increase open-set speech perception scores. Study Design: This was a repeated-measures study design in the setting of a primary (elementary) school for the hearing impaired. Patients: The study population was composed of three hearing-impaired children using Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant. Intervention: Intervention used was language remediation sessions. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were assessment of auditory-alone speech perception benefit using open-set words and sentences and assessment of syntactic knowledge using the Test of Syntactic Ability. Outcome measures were applied before and after remediation. Results: Child 1 and child 2 showed a significant postremediation improvement in their overall scores on the Test of Syntactic Ability and in their ability to perceive words learned during remediation. Child I and child 2 also showed a significant improvement in their scores on a modified Bamford-Kowal-Bench open-set sentence test, which specifically targeted grammatical constructs trained in remediation sessions. Conclusions: Remediation of language knowledge deficits significantly improved open-set speech perception for two children, suggesting a need to include language remediation in cochlear implant habilitation programs.
-
ItemWithin-subject comparison of speech perception benefits with a multiple-channel cochlear implant and tactile device( 1995)In order to adequately advise prospective cochlear implant patients and their families, a clinician must have a good knowledge of the potential for particular individuals to benefit from cochlear implants and other alternatives.
-
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 Pty 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 13:11 to 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.
-
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.