Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6
-
ItemThe development of a precurved cochlear implant electrode array and its preliminary psychophysical evaluation [Abstract]( 1998)A precurved banded electrode array may provide a better interface with the auditory neural pathways for cochlear implants, and provide better speech perception. A prototype arrray has been further evaluated for ease of insertion, siting within the cochlea and induction of any cochlear trauma. The arrays were inserted into the human cochlear under simulated surgery. The bones were embedded in Araldite, X-rayed and sectioned. X-ray reconstruction analyses of the position of the implanted array showed its insertion to be favourable. Cochlear implants with precurved arrays have been implanted in three patients. Psychophysical evaluation and X-ray analyses have shown that as electrode distance from the modiolus decreased: threshold current decreased; dynamic range increased; current spread as measured by forward masking studies, was more focused; electrode discrimination with loudness jitter (being abetter representation of the dynamic speech signal) improved; JNDs for loudness, expressed as a function of dynamic range, decreased.
-
ItemImplantation of the new nucleus C1-3 receiver stimulator and electrode array [Abstract]( 1997)There is an important need to fix the cochlear implant electrode array at a site close to the cochlea, so that the electrode will not slide out, or be subject to differential movement with growth changes. Fixation sites have been in the region of the posterior root of the zygoma and the floor of the antrum. Fixation has been by Dacron mesh ties platinum wire ties, or clips inserted with-special instruments. Biological cements have previously been tried but found to be toxic. The most ideal site is in the region of the cochleostomy.
-
ItemAetiology of hearing loss in children presenting for cochlear implantation and outcomes [Abstract]( 1997)The aetiology of hearing loss has a significant bearing on the likely outcome of cochlear implantation and therefore is an important consideration in patient selection and workup. Disease processes which result in sensorineural hearing loss may be associated with other structural or functional neurological disorders, in addition to 'damage to the cochlea and auditory pathways.
-
ItemSpeech perception benefits for implanted children with preoperative residual hearing [Abstract]( 1995)Since the implantation of the first children with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear prosthesis in Melbourne in 1985, there has been rapid expansion in the number of implanted children world-wide. Improved surgical technique and experience in paediatric assessment and management have contributed to a trend to implant very young children. At the same time there has also been continuing development of improved speech processing strategies resulting in greater speech perception benefits. In the Melbourne program, over 60% of children obtain significant scores on open-set word and sentence tests using their cochlear implant alone without the aid of lipreading. As parents and professionals have become aware of these improved benefits to speech perception benefits in profoundly deaf children, there have been requests to consider implanting severely-to-profoundly deaf children. In these children with higher levels of residual hearing, only those children with poorer-than-expected performance on speech perception tests using hearing aids have been considered for surgery. A number of such cases have now been implanted in the Melbourne program. The speech perception benefits for this group are reported and are being compared with benefits for the profoundly deaf group of children.
-
ItemSpeech perception benefits for children using the 22-channel Melbourne/cochlear hearing prosthesis [Abstract]( 1993)In 1985; the first child was implanted with the Cochlear 22-channel cochlear prosthesis at the University of Melbourne Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital Cochlear Implant Clinic. There are now 42 children who have received the device in Melbourne. Analysis of patient details for these children show a very heterogeneous group, with a wide range in age, hearing thresholds, duration of deafness and aetiology. The major aetiologies found were either a congenital profound deafness.; or a hearing loss due to meningitis. In all but 3 cases, the children are using 15 or more electrodes in the array. Speech perception benefits have been analyzed according to a six-level hierarchical classification scheme. All of-the children achieved a minimum benefit of discrimination of suprasegmental information (Category 2), and 59% of the children achieved open-set understanding of unfamiliar speech material without the aid of lip-reading (Categories 5 & 6). Detailed analysis suggests that the majority of children achieving open-set speech perception benefits had more than one year of experience with their implant. and less than seven years of profound deafness prior to implantation.
-
ItemPreliminary speech perception results for children with the 22-electrode Melbourne / cochlear hearing prosthesis( 1992)The Cochlear 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis was first implanted in a child at the Cochlear Implant Clinic at the University of. Melbourne and Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital in 1985. Since that time 42 children have received the device in Melbourne. Analysis of patient details shows that the majority of these children have a congenital as opposed to on acquired aetiology of hearing loss. In all but 3 cases, the children use 15 or more electrodes. In order to assist with evaluation of, benefits to speech perception across the very heterogeneous group of children, a six level hierarchical classification scheme for speech perception performance levels was created. All of the children achieved a minimum of Category 2 (discrimination of suprasegmental information). In total, 59 % of the children achieved Category 5 or 6 (open set recognition for unfamiliar materials). Analysis showed that the majority of these children had more than one year of experience. In contrast, the majority of children in Category 2 are those with less than one year of experience with the device.