Speech perception with a single-channel cochlear implant: a comparison with a single-channel tactile device.

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. 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.

[1]  R. Tyler,et al.  Audiological Results with Two Single Channel Cochlear Implants , 1985, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[2]  Margaret W. Skinner,et al.  Comparison of benefit from vibrotactile aid and cochlear implant for postlinguistically deaf adults , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[3]  N. P. Erber,et al.  Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. , 1976, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[4]  J M Weisenberger,et al.  The role of tactile aids in providing information about acoustic stimuli. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  D. V. Tasell,et al.  Rehabilitative audiology for children and adults , 1981 .

[6]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[7]  N. P. Erber,et al.  Auditory/vibratory perception of syllabic structure in words by profoundly hearing-impaired children. , 1977, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  A. Montgomery,et al.  Visual intelligibility of consonants: a lipreading screening test with implications for aural rehabilitation. , 1976, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  B L Scott,et al.  A method for training and evaluating the reception of ongoing speech. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[11]  S. Rosen,et al.  Prosodic and segmental aspects of speech perception with the House/3M single-channel implant. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  Janet M. Weisenberger,et al.  Comparison of two single‐channel vibrotactile aids for the hearing impaired , 1986 .

[13]  A E Carney,et al.  Vibrotactile perception of segmental features of speech: a comparison of single-channel and multichannel instruments. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  Larkins Pg The challenges ahead for the practice of speech-language pathology. , 1986 .

[15]  J M Pickett,et al.  Auditory implants and tactile aids for the profoundly deaf. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[16]  A E Carney,et al.  Vibrotactile perception of suprasegmental features of speech: a comparison of single-channel and multichannel instruments. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.