PubMed · 10214793
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R A Schindler. 1999. Personal reflections on cochlear implants.. https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894991080s402
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to document speech perception and localization abilities in patients who use a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear. DESIGN: We surveyed a group of 111 cochlear implant patients and asked them whether they used a hearing aid on their unimplanted ear. The first three patients who were available were tested on word and sentence recognition and localization tasks. Speech stimuli were presented from the front in quiet and in noise. In the latter conditions, noise was either from the front, the right, or the left. Localization was tested with noise bursts presented at 45 degrees from the right or left. In addition we asked the patients about their abilities to integrate the information from both devices. RESULTS: Speech perception tests in quiet showed a binaural advantage for only one of the three patients for words and none for sentences. With speech and noise both in front of the patient, two patients performed better with both devices than with either device alone. With speech in front and noise on the hearing aid side, no binaural advantage was seen, but with noise on the cochlear implant side, one patient showed a binaural advantage. Localization ability improved with both devices for two patients. The third patient had above-chance localization ability with his implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: A cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear can provide binaural advantages. The patient who did not show a clear binaural advantage had the poorest hearing aid alone performance. The absolute and relative levels of performance at each ear are likely to influence the potential for binaural integration.
HYPOTHESIS: This study investigated whether pressure changes common to scuba diving and to hyperbaric oxygen therapy would not cause crush damage or leakage from critical seals in commercially available cochlear implants. BACKGROUND: The implanted packages of cochlear implants are susceptible to electrical failure caused by leakage from critical seals and to crush injury when exposed to changing barometric pressures encountered in recreational diving and in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. METHODS: Six Clarion 1.2, eight MED-EL Combi-40+, six Nucleus CI22M, and six Nucleus CI24M cochlear implants underwent three exposures at 165 feet of seawater (FSW) (6 ata abs), 99 FSW (4 ata abs), and 60 FSW (2.8 ata abs), simulating rates in accordance with U.S. Navy dive tables for nondecompression dives. Dives to 45 FSW (2.4 ata abs) simulated wound therapy. Before each dive began, after each dive, and after completion of the dive protocol, each device underwent telemetry and electrical integrity checks. All implants were returned to their respective factories for final electrical and quality control testing. RESULTS: All 26 devices completed the dive protocol. One Nucleus CI24M implant had a fault recorded at electrode lead 18 on predive and final product testing, which was absent during interval dive measurements. All 26 devices passed final electrical and quality control testing. In addition, the six Clarion units passed repeat helium leak testing. CONCLUSION: The implanted components of the Clarion 1.2, MED-EL Combi-40+, and Nucleus CI22M and CI24M were safely subjected to repeated pressure changes up to 6 atm abs, equivalent to 165 feet of seawater, without electrical failure from leakage at critical seals or crush damage.
This study describes the effect of speech rate (fast, 11 syllables per second; medium, 9 syllables per second; slow, 6 syllables per second) on speech perception in 10 cochlear implant users. The speech perception performance was evaluated on the basis of the percentage score of syllables that were correctly recalled in sentences composed of 4 to 6 words. The percentage scores at the fast, medium, and slow speech rates were 15.7%, 39.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. The effect of speech rate slowing was significant (p < .0001). Variations in the effect of speech rate slowing were observed in the cochlear implant users. The improvement of speech perception by speech rate slowing was significantly (p < .005) related to the word test score and the score at the fast speech rate. The results reveal that the rate of speech is an important factor in improving the speech perception of cochlear implant users.