Initial Iowa Results with the Multichannel Cochlear Implant from Melbourne Two subjects who use the Melbourne multichannel cochlear implant were studied. Live-voice word, consonant, and vowel recognition tests, and a speech-tracking task were administered at regular intervals during the first 90 days after implantation. Results indicated 30-50% correct recognition of vowels (given 9 alternatives) and about 30-60% correct recognition of ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1984
Initial Iowa Results with the Multichannel Cochlear Implant from Melbourne
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Richard S. Tyler
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • Mary W. Lowder
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • Steven R. Otto
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • John P. Preece
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • Bruce J. Gantz
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • Brian F. McCabe
    University of Iowa, Iowa City
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1984
Initial Iowa Results with the Multichannel Cochlear Implant from Melbourne
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1984, Vol. 27, 596-604. doi:10.1044/jshr.2704.596
History: Received January 13, 1984 , Accepted August 14, 1984
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1984, Vol. 27, 596-604. doi:10.1044/jshr.2704.596
History: Received January 13, 1984; Accepted August 14, 1984

Two subjects who use the Melbourne multichannel cochlear implant were studied. Live-voice word, consonant, and vowel recognition tests, and a speech-tracking task were administered at regular intervals during the first 90 days after implantation. Results indicated 30-50% correct recognition of vowels (given 9 alternatives) and about 30-60% correct recognition of consonants (given 12 alternatives). Speech tracking showed from two to three times faster rates with the implant and vision compared to a vision-alone condition. After 3-4 months of implant experience, a number of recorded tests from the Minimal Auditory Capabilities battery and the Iowa Cochlear-Implant tests were then administered. These results indicated about 80% recognition of everyday sounds in a five-choice closed-set condition and about 50% recognition of everyday sounds in an open-set condition. The subjects were 50% correct at identifying the accented words in a sentence and about 50% correct at determining the number of syllables in a word. One subject was unable to recognize a sentence as a statement or a question. Background noise (+10 dB S/N) reduced their performance on a four-choice spondee test to chance. Both subjects were able to identify a sound as either a voice or a modulated noise at 95% correct, and both could recognize speaker sex at 95% correct. Neither could discriminate whether two (successive) sentences were spoken by the same speaker or by two different speakers. Remarkably, one subject identified 45% and the other 85% of the words in sentences that were preceded by a contextual picture using sound alone. One subject identified 13% of the words in sentences in sound alone even without contextual information.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access