Judith A. Brimacombe

Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant.

Seven postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant participated in an evaluation of speech perception performance with three speech processors: the Wearable Speech Process (WSP III), a prototype of the Mini Speech Processor, and the Mini Speech Processor. The first experiment was performed with the prototype and Wearable Speech Processor both programmed using the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. The second experiment compared performance with the Mini Speech Processor programmed with the Multi-Peak speech coding strategy and the Wearable Speech Processor programmed with the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. Performance was evaluated in the sound-only condition using recorded speech tests presented in quiet and in noise. Questionnaires and informal reports provided information about use in everyday life. In experiment I, there was no significant difference in performance using the Wearable Speech Processor and prototype on any of the tests. Nevertheless, six out of seven subjects preferred the prototype for use in everyday life. In experiment II, performance on open-set tests in quiet and noise was significantly higher with the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) than with the Wearable Speech Processor. Subjects reported an increase in their ability to communicate with other people using the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) compared with the Wearable Speech Processor in everyday life.

Perceptual abilities of children with the nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of the clinical trials in children was to demonstrate that the Nucleus cochlear implant was safe and effective in this population. The demonstration of effectiveness was thought to primarily relate to improvements in speech perception skills, with and without lipreading, after implantation. For postoperative benefit to be considered meaningful, performance with the implant was required to significantly exceed the child’s preoperative performance in the better hearing ear. Best-aided performance preoperatively was typically with binaural amplification, or in about one-quarter of the subjects, vibrotactile devices. As was described in detail by Mecklenburg et al (see Chap. 2), for the purposes of the clinical trial each child was an individual experiment. Preto postoperative changes in performance were analyzed for each test on each child to determine the effectiveness of the device. The data from 80 subjects were analyzed in this manner and on the basis of these data, the Food and Drug Administration granted marketing approval on June 27, 1990. With the accrual of additional patient data since that time, the focus of research interest broadened to include the following questions: (1 ) does performance improve significantly after implantation; (2) does performance continue to improve with longer term experience using the implant; (3) are there factors that predict performance on speech perception measures; (4) do children with congenital deafness achieve the same skill level postoperatively as do children who acquired language before the onset of deafness; and (5) does the type and effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation influence overall performance.

Comparison of speech recognition results for a one‐ and two‐formant speech coding strategy for a multichannel cochlear implant

This study compared clinical results obtained from 96 postlinguistically deafened adults implanted with the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. Seventy‐one patients were fitted with a device that tracked the second formant of the voice, while 25 used one that tracked the first and second formant frequencies. Experience with the device averaged 3.7 months. Four subtests (four‐choice spondee, vowel, NU♯6, and CID sentences) of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities Battery (Auditec of St. Louis recording) were used. In addition, 209 patients were administered live‐voice measures (continuous discourse tracking and vowel/consonant identification) in three conditions: lipreading, lipreading plus device, and device only. Results revealed that the group using the two‐formant tracker performed significantly better than those using the one‐formant tracker on the following measures: (1) NU♯6 monosyllabic word test; (2) CID sentences; (3) continuous discourse tracking difference score (lipreading plus device minu...