Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17
-
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.
-
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.
-
ItemPotential and limitations of cochlear implants in children( 1995)Multiple-channel cochlear implants have been in use with children and adolescents for 8 years. The speech perception, speech production, and language of many of these children has been investigated in some detail.l-4 There have been many predictions about factors that may affect the performance of children with implants. For instance, it has been suggested that children with a congenital loss of hearing would not have the same potential to benefit from a cochlear implant as those with an acquired loss. Similarly, it has been suggested that younger children are likely to gain more benefit from a cochlear implant because of the effect of various critical ages for language learning.5 As more results have become available, it has been our observation that the performance of any particular child with a cochlear implant does not appear to follow well-defined rules, and that generalizations about the potential of certain groups of children are likely to encounter many exceptions. We now have a large quantity of results for children using cochlear implants, and it may be possible to determine some of the factors that have a significant effect on performance. This paper will attempt to identify some of these factors by reviewing speech perception results for 100 children implanted with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear prosthesis in Australia and speech perception results for adult patients. This analysis will use an "information processing" model of a child using a cochlear implant. That is, we will assume that a child will benefit from a cochlear implant in terms of speech perception, production, and language development, if he or she receives a maximal amount of auditory information from the environment, and is able to process this information successfully. This model divides potential limiting or predictive factors into those that affect the information presented to the auditory system (eg, implant technology, surviving auditory neurons) and those that affect the processing of this information (eg, development of central auditory pathways, amount and consistency of auditory input).
-
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.
-
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.
-
ItemSpeech self-monitoring by children using an electrotactile speech processor( 1995)For the profoundly and severely-to-profoundly hearing impaired child, lipreading and hearing aids are not always sufficient to develop adequate speech perception and production skills. Tactile devices have been investigated as a source of supplementary speech information, with most research focusing on speech perception benefits. However, speech production difficulties are also a major issue for these children, and research into tactile devices should include investigation of the option to use them as speech production aids. This paper will present the results from an initial examination of the suitability of one tactile device for speech production monitoring.
-
ItemImproved electrotactile speech processor: Tickle Talker( 1995)The Tickle Talker, an eight-channel electrotactile speech processor, has been developed from continuing research at the University of Melbourne. 'The development of the device has focused on production of reliable speech-processing hardware, design of cosmetically and ergonometrically acceptable electrode transducers, implementation of acute and chronic biomedical studies demonstrating device safety, design and testing of alternative speech-encoding strategies to provide benefit to speech perception and production, and design and testing of appropriate training methods for optimizing benefits. The Tickle Talker has been shown to provide benefits in supplementing lipreading or aided residual hearing for hearing-impaired adults and children. Improvements in speech processing have resulted in an increase in benefits to speech perception, and open the way for more flexible approaches to encoding speech input. Continuing development of the electrode circuitry has now produced a device that is robust and has an extended battery life. Safety studies have clearly demonstrated that there are no long-term contraindications to device use. The results suggest that the device has a role to play in rehabilitation programs for severely and profoundly hearing-impaired adults and children.
-
ItemPreliminary evaluation of a formant enhancement algorithm on the perception of speech in noise for normally hearing listeners( 1994)The effects on speech perception in noise of dynamic filtering with bandpass filters centred at the first formant (f1) and second formant (f2) frequencies were evaluated with four normally hearing listeners. Multitalker babble was added to the speech signal with signal-to-noise ratios of-5 to -15 dB, chosen to reduce intelligibility to about 50%. The combined signal was then filtered with two-pole programmable bandpass filters centred at fl and f2 under the control of a real-time speech processor. The f1 and f2 frequencies were estimated from the speech signal before noise was added to avoid hardware processing errors. Closed set vowel and consonant tests (using 11/h/vowel/d/ and 12 /a/consonant/a/ stimuli), the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Monosyllabic Word Test and the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Sentence Test were carried out for three filter bandwidths (3/4, 1/3 and 1/6 octave) and for unprocessed speech in noise. The processing produced a small significant improvement for vowels in all three processed speech conditions and for monosyllables at the broadest filter setting compared to the unprocessed speech condition. There was no significant effect on consonants. A small negative effect was observed for sentences at the narrowest filter setting.
-
ItemCochlear implants for congenitally deaf adolescents: is open-set speech perception a realistic expectation?( 1994)The prognosis for benefit from use of cochlear implants in congenitally deaf adolescents, who have a long duration of profound deafness prior to implantation, has typically been low. Speech perception results for two congenitally deaf patients implanted as adolescents at the University of Melbourne/Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital Clinic show that, after 12 months of experience, both patients had significant open-set speech discrimination scores without lipreading. These results suggest that although benefits may in general be low for congenitally deaf adolescents, individuals may attain significant benefits to speech perception after a short period of experience. Prospective patients from this group should therefore be considered on an individual basis with regard to prognosis for benefit from cochlear implantation.
-
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.