Audiological Management and Performance of Adult Cochlear-Implant Patients

1992 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Mary W. Lowder
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
University Of Iowa ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Time Commitment ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The University

We review the signal-processing strategies of three of the most common cochlear implants in use today, the single-channel House, the multichannel Nucleus, and the Ineraid devices. The results of 65 postlinguistically-deafened patients tested at The University of Iowa are reviewed. The tests include everyday sound, accent, word and sentence recognition, as well as noise/voice differentiation. For all tests, patients with the Nucleus and Ineraid cochlear implants outperformed those with the House implant. In general, selection criteria should focus on comparing the performance of Patients who have already received an implant. Prelinguistically-deafened adults are typically not good cochlear-impact candidates. Cochlear-implant teams should be aware of the enormous time commitment for testing and rehabilitation of these patients, and be prepared to handle frequent implant breakdowns. Nevertheless, cochlear-implant patients have been helped significantly be these devices.

Speech Perception with a Single-Channel Cochlear Implant

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arlene Earley Carney ◽  
Marjorie Kienle ◽  
Richard T. Miyamoto
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Performance Level ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Overall Performance

Suprasegmental and segmental speech perception tasks were administered to 8 patients with single-channel cochlear implants. Suprasegmental tasks included the recognition of syllable number, syllabic stress, and intonation. Segmental tasks included the recognition of vowels and consonants in three modalities: visual only, implant only, and visual + implant. Results were compared to those obtained from artificially deafened adults using a single-channel vibrotactile device (Carney, 1988; Carney & Beachler, 1986). The patterns of responses for both suprasegmental and segmental tasks were highly similar for both groups of subjects, despite differences between the characteristics of the subject samples. These results suggest that single-channel sensory devices, whether they be cochlear implants or vibrotactile aids, produce similar patterns of speech perception errors, even when differences are observed in overall performance level.

An Introduction to Cochlear Implant Technology, Activation, and Programming

2002 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan A. Moore ◽  
Holly F. B. Teagle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Academic Development ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Technology In The Classroom ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery

Over the last decade, cochlear implantation has become an increasingly viable alternative for the treatment of profound sensorineural hearing loss in children. Although speech and hearing professionals play an important role in the communicative, social, and academic development of children with cochlear implants, many may be unfamiliar with recent advances in implant technology. This article provides an overview of the components of cochlear implant systems and the speech processing strategies that are currently being used by toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children. A brief description of cochlear implant surgery and the procedures for programming these devices are also included. Finally, information regarding the use of assistive listening technology in the classroom is presented.

Comparison between Melbourne and House Cochlear Implants

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 148-149
Author(s):  
C. K. Pauka ◽  
W. P. R. Gibson ◽  
C. J. A. Game
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Open Set

Three single-channel and three multichannel cochlear implant patients were tested with warble tone audiometry and with part of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities (MAC) battery. Patients were also asked to report on their devices. The ratio of House result to Melbourne result was calculated for each MAC battery test. Many tests scarcely discriminated between the two sets of patients, but some tests discriminated sharply; these latter were open set tests of speech understanding.

Building a Cochlear Implant Practice: Five Lessons Learned

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21
Author(s):  
Anne M. Lobdell ◽  
Joseph E. Dansie ◽  
Sarah Hargus Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Speech Science ◽  
The University ◽  
First Time

Cochlear implants are becoming available to an increasing proportion of the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. As interest in and success with cochlear implants has grown, more and more private practice clinics are incorporating them into their scopes of practice. Over the past 2 years, the first 2 authors of this article have been heavily involved in developing cochlear implant programs in separate otolaryngology private practices. A recent conversation about this process revealed several common experiences and lessons learned. During these same 2 years, the third author began teaching the cochlear implant course at the University of Utah. Although her audiology and speech science background gave her extensive knowledge of the science behind cochlear implants, she had no clinical experience with them. The first author took this course the first time the third author taught it, and the experiences and insights she shared with the third author during and since the course have been an important component of the third author’s personal education in the clinical aspects of cochlear implants. In this article, the first 2 authors share 5 things we wish we had known when first beginning their work with cochlear implants.

Use of Multichannel Cochlear Implants in Obstructed and Obliterated Cochleas

1988 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
Brian F. Mccabe ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
External Auditory Canal ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Scala Tympani ◽  
Radiographic Evidence ◽  
Early Experiences ◽  
Channel Electrode ◽  
Gain Access

Obstruction that occurs within the scala tympani (after meningitis or otosclerosis) has been considered a contraindication for placement of a multichannel cochlear implant electrode. Two patients who exhibited radiographic evidence of intracochlear narrowing and obliteration were implanted with multichannel electrodes. Implantation involved creation of a channel for the electrode to wrap around the modiolus. The middle ear cavity and the external auditory canal also had to be removed to gain access. The response of one of the patients was similar to that of patients with normal cochlear anatomy who use multichannel devices. These early experiences, along with one case in which a single-channel electrode was placed, is presented.

Combined Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Sound Localization for Listeners With Normal Hearing and Bilateral Cochlear Implants

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-530
Author(s):  
Yunfang Zheng ◽  
Janet Koehnke ◽  
Joan Besing
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Source ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Combined Effects ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implants ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
The Individual

Purpose This study examined the individual and combined effects of noise and reverberation on the ability of listeners with normal hearing (NH) and with bilateral cochlear implants (BCIs) to localize speech. Method Six adults with BCIs and 10 with NH participated. All subjects completed a virtual localization test in quiet and at 0-, −4-, and −8-dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in simulated anechoic and reverberant (0.2-, 0.6-, and 0.9-s RT 60 ) environments. BCI users were also tested at +8- and +4-dB SNR. A 3-word phrase was presented at 70 dB SPL from 9 simulated locations in the frontal horizontal plane (±90°), with the noise source at 0°. Results BCIs users had significantly poorer localization than listeners with NH in all conditions. BCI users' performance started to decrease at a higher SNR (+4 dB) and shorter RT 60 (0.2 s) than listeners with NH (−4 dB and 0.6 s). The combination of noise and reverberation began to degrade localization of BCI users at a higher SNR and a shorter RT 60 than listeners with NH. Conclusion The clear effect of noise and reverberation on the performance of BCI users provides information that should be useful for refining cochlear implant processing strategies and developing cochlear implant rehabilitation plans to optimize binaural benefit for BCI users in everyday listening situations.

Comparison of Sensory Aids in Deaf Children

1989 ◽  
Vol 98 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard T. Miyamoto ◽  
Mary Joe Osberger ◽  
Wendy A. Myres ◽  
Amy J. Robbins ◽  
Kathy Kessler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Channel Coding ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Implant Design ◽  
Detection Level ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
Auditory Speech

A speech perception hierarchy has been developed and applied to assess the influence of cochlear implants and tactile aids on the acquisition of auditory, speech, and language skills in deaf children. Encouraging improvements were noted with both types of sensory aids at the detection level. The House 3M and Nucleus cochlear implant designs appear to offer advantages over the Tactaid II in providing ancillary speech perception cues to deaf children. Preliminary observations suggest that the multichannel cochlear implant design may be superior to the single-channel coding scheme.

Auditory Brainstem Implant: II. Postsurgical Issues and Performance

1993 ◽  
Vol 108 (6) ◽  
pp. 634-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert V. Shannon ◽  
Jose Fayad ◽  
Jean Moore ◽  
William W. M. Lo ◽  
Steve Otto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Electrode Configuration ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Implant ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Selection Of

The auditory brainstem Implant (ABI) restores some hearing sensations to patients deafened by bilateral acoustic tumors. Electrodes are stable for more than 10 years. In most cases nonaudltory side effects can be avoided by judicious selection of the stimulating waveform and electrode configuration. Most perceptual measurements demonstrate that the ABI produces psychophysical and speech performance similar to that of single-channel cochlear implants. ABI patients receive suprasegmental Information in speech and significant enhancement of speech understanding when the sound from the ABI is combined with Ilpreading.

Multichannel Cochlear Implantation with Percutaneous Pedestal

1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
Matthew J. Parkin
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Patient Performance ◽  
Post Implantation

In a prospective study by Cohen et al,3 the superiority of multi channel cochlear implant patient performance over single-channel cochlear implant performance was demonstrated. The Ineraid system described in this paper includes a percutaneous pedestal which has had a satisfactory patient experience. Only one pedestal removal has been necessary because of specific pedestal problems. Other less serious pedestal problems decrease in frequency with increasing time post-implantation. The auditory performance indicates significant commu nication skills improvement in patients with multichannel cochlear implants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document