Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7
-
ItemHearing restoration with the multichannel auditory brainstem implant( 1997)Restoration of useful hearing is now possible in patients with bilateral acoustic neuromas by direct electrical stimulation of the cochlear nucleus. Our first experience with the Multichannel Auditory Brainstem Implant is reported. A forty four year old female with bilateral acoustic neuromas and a strong family history of Neurofibromatosis Type II presented with profound bilateral hearing impairment. Translabyrinthine removal of the right tumour was performed with placement of the Nucleus eight electrode Auditory Brainstem Implant. Intraoperative electrically evoked auditory brainstem response monitoring successfully confirmed placement over the cochlear nucleus. Postoperatively, auditory responses were obtained on stimulation of all electrodes with minimal non-auditory sensations. The patient now receives useful auditory sensations using the "SPEAK" speech processing strategy. Auditory brainstem Implantation should be considered for patients with Neurofibromatosis Type II in whom hearing preservation tumour removal is not possible.
-
ItemThe progress of children using the multichannel cochlear implant in Melbourne( 1995)Multi-channel cochlear implantation in children began in Australia in 1985 and there are now close to 4000 profoundly deaf children and adolescents using the Australian implant system around the world. The aim of the implant procedure is to provide adequate hearing for speech and language development through auditory input. This contrasts with the situation for adults with acquired deafness where the cochlear implant aims to restore hearing for someone with well-developed auditory processing and language skills. As with adults, results vary over a wide range for children using the Multi-channel implant. Many factors have been suggested that may contribute to differences in speech perception for implanted children. In an attempt to better understand these factors, the speech perception results for children implanted in Melbourne were reviewed and subjected to statistical analysis. This has indicated that the amount of experience with the implant and the length of sensory deprivation are strongly correlated with perceptual results. This means that younger children are likely to perform better with an implant and that a number of years of experience are required for children to reach their full potential. The results have also indicated that educational placement and management play a crucial role in children reaching their potential. Overall, 60% of the children and adolescents in the study have reached a level of open-set speech understanding using the cochlear implant without lipreading.
-
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 in children using the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy( 1995)The Speak speech-processing strategy, developed by the University of Melbourne and commercialized by Cochlear Pty Limited for use in the new Spectra 22 speech processor, has been shown to provide improved speech perception for adults in both quiet and noisy situations. The present study evaluated the ability of children experienced in the use of the Multipeak (Mpeak) speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Minisystem-22 cochlear implant) to adapt to and benefit from the advanced Speak speech-processing strategy (implemented in the Nucleus Spectra 22 speech processor). Twelve children were assessed using Mpeak and Speak over a period of 8 months. All of the children had over 1 year's previous experience with Mpeak, and all were able to score significantly on open-set word and sentence tests using the cochlear implant alone. Children were assessed with both live-voice and recorded speech materials, including Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant monosyllabic words and Speech Intelligibility Test sentences. Assessments were made in both quiet and in noise. Assessments were made at 3-week intervals to investigate the ability of the children to adapt to the new speech-processing strategy. For most of the children, a significant advantage was evident when using the Speak strategy as compared with Mpeak. For 4 of the children, there was no decrement in speech perception scores immediately following fitting with Speak. Eight of the children showed a small (10% to 20%) decrement in speech perception scores for between 3 and 6 weeks following the changeover to Speak. After 24 weeks' experience with Speak, 11 of the children had shown a steady increase in speech perception scores, with final Speak scores higher than for Mpeak. Only 1 child showed a significant decrement in speech perception with Speak, which did not recover to original Mpeak levels.
-
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.
-
ItemThe development of the Melbourne/Cochlear multiple-channel cochlear implant for profoundly deaf children( 1992)In 1978-79, a speech processing strategy which extracted the voicing (FO) and second formant (F2) frequencies and presented these as rate and place of stimulation respectively to residual auditory nerve fibres was developed for the University of Melbourne's prototype multiple-channel receiver-stimulator (Clark et aI1977, Clark et a11978, Tong et aI1980). This speech processing strategy was shown to provide post linguistically deaf adults with some open-set speech comprehension using electrical stimulation alone, and considerable help when used in combination with lipreading (Clark et al 1981).
-
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.