Speech Performance by Patients with Multichannel Cochlear Implants

1986 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
M. Korine Dankowski
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Word List ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Processor Unit ◽  
Sound Processor ◽  
Channel Unit

Thirteen patients were implanted with multichannel cochlear implants between April 1,1984 and February 25,1985. The patients are fitted with the sound processor unit 4 to 6 weeks postsurgery. One patient had a single-channel unit replaced with a multichannel implant. She reported improved sound quality. All patients use their implants daily and all patients would undergo implantation again (based on their current performance). Evidence exists that continued use leads to improved performance. Patient S.S. progressed from auditory-only scores of 12% and 24% to 100% and 100% in 4 months. The average open set auditory-only performance of six patients in the first 4 months on a spondee word list was 22%. The average of eight patients—more than 4 months post sound processor—is 44%, indicating improvement with use. Patients perform better when combining auditory input with visual input than they do with lip reading alone. The multichannel implant is well tolerated and accepted, and results in speech performance improvement.

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.

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.

Prognosticating Speech Performance in Multichannel Cochlear Implant Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
Bruce E. Stewart ◽  
Korine Dankowski ◽  
Leonard J. Haas
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
The University

Twenty patients received multichannel cochlear implants between April 1984 and May 1986 at the University of Utah Medical Center. All patients have been followed for at least 1 year postimplant. Preimplant screening included audiometric testing, electronystagmogram (ENG), promontory stimulation, computed tomography (CT) scanning, and psychological evaluation. Based on postimplant audio-only CID sentence discrimination scores, these patients were divided into three groups: good (CID > 79%), Intermediate (CID, 21% to 79%), and poor (CID < 21%). Preimplant factors that correlated with CID scores were hearing loss duration, previous use of hearing aids, lip-reading ability, tinnitus, positive ENG calorics, preimplant pure-tone average, promontory stimulation threshold, and understanding of the project. Only previous hearing aid usage approached statistical significance ( p = 0.05). A larger patient sample is needed to verify these results.

Multichannel Cochlear Implant: The New York University/Bellevue Experience

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 139-140
Author(s):  
N. L. Cohen ◽  
S. B. Waltzman ◽  
W. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Word List ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Scala Tympani ◽  
New York University ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Open Set

A total of nine patients have been implanted at the New York University/Bellevue Medical Center with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 62 years, with a mean age of 38.7 years. All were postlingually deafened with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss, and were unable to benefit from appropriate amplification. Each patient was implanted with the 22-electrode array inserted into the scala tympani, using the facial recess technique. Seven of the nine patients have functioning 22-channel systems, whereas one patient has a single-channel system and one had 14 electrodes inserted because of an unsuspected obstruction in the scala tympani. All patients are regular users of the device and none have been lost to follow-up. Seven patients have completed the prescribed Nucleus training program, and two patients are in the early stages of training. All nine patients have shown a restoration of hearing sensation in response to acoustic stimuli and a recognition of a wide variety of environmental sounds. All seven patients who have completed training and are using the multichannel stimulation have shown an improvement in their vowel and consonant recognition scores when the implant is used in conjunction with lipreading. Mean speech-tracking scores for these patients show an improvement from lipreading alone to lipreading with implant of 28.8 to 60.6 words per minute. Patients also demonstrated a consistent increased ability to use suprasegmental information and to obtain closed set work recognition on portions of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities test battery. Several of the patients have shown an ability to understand significant amounts of open set speech without lipreading. Two patients can comprehend noncoded telephone conversation; one scores an average of 42% on open set speech discrimination testing and the other 20% using the W22 word list with audition only.

Speech Recognition Experience with Multichannel Cochlear Implants

1985 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
Donald K. Eddington ◽  
Jeffrey L. Orth ◽  
Derald E. Brackmann
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Sound Coding ◽  
Coding Strategies ◽  
The University ◽  
Sound Processor

Four patients received multichannel intracochlear implants before 1978 as part of the University of Utah program. By 1983, sound coding strategies and electronic miniaturization were developed to allow production and use of a portable sound processor/cochlear stimulator unit. Approval for expanded clinical trials has allowed Implantation of five additional patients by August 1984. Data on the earlier patients demonstrate stability of electrode thresholds and impedance, low risk of the percutaneous pedestal, and the development of speech recognition scores of greater than 60% with electrical stimulation alone and greater than 90% with electrical stimulation combined with lipreading. Data on recent recipients indicate early electrode threshold stability, lower thresholds for apical electrodes, possibility of replacing single-channel with multichannel units, and low morbidity of the implantation. Return to function in a verbally communicating environment has been achieved by one earlier patient.

Speech Processing for Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Variations of the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor Strategy

1994 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colette M. McKay ◽  
Andrew E. Vandali ◽  
Hugh J. McDermott ◽  
Graeme M. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Sound Processor

Comparison of open-set speech-perception performance of children with cochlear implants and hearing aids

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (sup1) ◽  
pp. 128-130
Author(s):  
Min-Jung Heo ◽  
Lee-Suk Kim ◽  
Woo-Yong Bae ◽  
Young-Deok Park
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Open Set

Effects of Lexical Characteristics and Demographic Factors on Mandarin Chinese Open-Set Word Recognition in Children With Cochlear Implants

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haihong Liu ◽  
Sha Liu ◽  
Suju Wang ◽  
Chang Liu ◽  
Ying Kong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Open Set

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.

Cochlear Wall Erosion after Cochlear Implantation

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (7) ◽  
pp. 543-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco J. Cervera-Paz ◽  
Frederick H. Linthicum
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid ◽  
Lymphocytic Infiltration ◽  
Variable Degree ◽  
Histologic Finding ◽  
New Bone Formation ◽  
Anterior Portion ◽  
Temporal Bones

Objectives: Cochlear implantation is a clinically satisfactory procedure, but it is associated with a variable degree of histologic intracochlear trauma. We report a new histologic finding in a cochlear implant specimen from the House Ear Institute collection. Methods: An analysis of 34 temporal bones with single-channel (n = 23) or multichannel (n = 11) cochlear implants was performed. All temporal bones had been fixed for a month in 10% buffered formalin, progressively decalcified in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and embedded in celloidin. After electrode removal, the bones were cut into 20-μm sections and stained. Results: In 1 specimen, the implanted electrode had caused erosion of the bone through the endosteum into the marrow spaces, at the superior-anterior portion of the basal turn. This area showed an intense lymphocytic infiltration surrounded by some new bone formation. Conclusions: Trauma may provoke an inflammatory reaction due to the presence of the foreign body after violation of the endosteum.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document