Results of speech perception and speech production training for three prelingually deaf patients using a multiple-electrode cochlear implant

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 291-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Busby ◽  
S. A. Roberts ◽  
Y. C. Tong ◽  
G. M. Clark
2000 ◽  
Vol 109 (12_suppl) ◽  
pp. 82-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Holly F. B. Teagle ◽  
Danielle M. R. Kelsay ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
George G. Woodworth ◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Tye-Murray ◽  
Linda Spencer ◽  
George G. Woodworth

The four purposes of this investigation were to assess whether children acquire intelligible speech following prolonged cochlear-implant experience and examine their speech error patterns, to examine how age at implantation influences speech acquisition, to assess how speech production and speech perception skills relate, and to determine whether cochlear implant recipients who formerly used simultaneous communication (speech and manually coded English) begin to use speech without sign to communicate. Twenty-eight prelinguistically deafened children who use a Nucleus cochlear implant were assigned to one of three age groups, according to age at implantation: 2–5 yrs (N = 12), 5–8 yrs (N = 9), and 8–15 yrs (N = 7). All subjects had worn a cochlear implant for at least 24 mos, and an average of 36 mos. All subjects used simultaneous communication at the time of implantation. Subjects performed both imitative and structured spontaneous sampling speech tasks. The results permit the following conclusions: (a) children who have used a cochlear implant for at least 2 yrs acquire some intelligible speech; (b) children who receive a cochlear implant before the age of 5 yrs appear to show greater benefit in their speech production skills than children who are older, at least after a minimum of 2 yrs of use; (c) children who recognize more speech while wearing their cochlear implants are likely to speak more intelligibly; and, (d) signing does not disappear from a child’s communication mode following implantation.


1995 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 2454-2460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Tye‐Murray ◽  
Linda Spencer ◽  
Elizabeth Gilbert‐Bedia

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 18S-27S ◽  
Author(s):  
C. E. Psarros ◽  
K. L. Plant ◽  
K. Lee ◽  
J. A. Decker ◽  
L. A. Whitford ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 755-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Anneke M. Vermeulen ◽  
Charlotte P. Geelen ◽  
Jan P. L. Brokx ◽  
Paul Van Den Broek

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 1252-1270
Author(s):  
Wouter P. J. Broos ◽  
Aster Dijkgraaf ◽  
Eva Van Assche ◽  
Heleen Vander Beken ◽  
Nicolas Dirix ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lílian Rodrigues de Almeida ◽  
Paul A. Pope ◽  
Peter Hansen

In our previous studies we supported the claim that the motor theory is modulated by task load. Motoric participation in phonological processing increases from speech perception to speech production, with the endpoints of the dorsal stream having changing and complementary weightings for processing: the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) being increasingly relevant and the left superior temporal gyrus (LSTG) being decreasingly relevant. Our previous results for neurostimulation of the LIFG support this model. In this study we investigated whether our claim that the motor theory is modulated by task load holds in (frontal) aphasia. Person(s) with aphasia (PWA) after stroke typically have damage on brain areas responsible for phonological processing. They may present variable patterns of recovery and, consequently, variable strategies of phonological processing. Here these strategies were investigated in two PWA with simultaneous fMRI and tDCS of the LIFG during speech perception and speech production tasks. Anodal tDCS excitation and cathodal tDCS inhibition should increase with the relevance of the target for the task. Cathodal tDCS over a target of low relevance could also induce compensation by the remaining nodes. Responses of PWA to tDCS would further depend on their pattern of recovery. Responses would depend on the responsiveness of the perilesional area, and could be weaker than in controls due to an overall hypoactivation of the cortex. Results suggest that the analysis of motor codes for articulation during phonological processing remains in frontal aphasia and that tDCS is a promising diagnostic tool to investigate the individual processing strategies.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Rahne ◽  
Michael Ziese ◽  
Dorothea Rostalski ◽  
Roland Mühler

This paper describes a logatome discrimination test for the assessment of speech perception in cochlear implant users (CI users), based on a multilingual speech database, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus, which was originally recorded for the comparison of human and automated speech recognition. The logatome discrimination task is based on the presentation of 100 logatome pairs (i.e., nonsense syllables) with balanced representations of alternating “vowel-replacement” and “consonant-replacement” paradigms in order to assess phoneme confusions. Thirteen adult normal hearing listeners and eight adult CI users, including both good and poor performers, were included in the study and completed the test after their speech intelligibility abilities were evaluated with an established sentence test in noise. Furthermore, the discrimination abilities were measured electrophysiologically by recording the mismatch negativity (MMN) as a component of auditory event-related potentials. The results show a clear MMN response only for normal hearing listeners and CI users with good performance, correlating with their logatome discrimination abilities. Higher discrimination scores for vowel-replacement paradigms than for the consonant-replacement paradigms were found. We conclude that the logatome discrimination test is well suited to monitor the speech perception skills of CI users. Due to the large number of available spoken logatome items, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus appears to provide a useful and powerful basis for further development of speech perception tests for CI users.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document