PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3755709

[Cochlear implants].

Abstract

Since the middle of 1984, the HNO-Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover has provided deaf adults with a 22-channel cochlear implant (CI) device of Clark-NUCLEUS. The digital working system consists of an implantable stimulator/receiver and an externally worn speech processor. Energy and signals are transmitted transcutaneously via a transmitter coil. During the prevailing 26 operations (April 1986) the electrode array could be inserted at least 17 mm into the cochlea. The threshold and comfort levels of all patients were adjusted very quickly; the dynamic range usually grows during the first postoperative weeks. The individual rehabilitation results vary greatly, but all patients show a significant increase of vowel and consonant comprehension while using the speech processor and an improvement of words understood per minute in speech tracking from lip-reading alone to lip-reading with speech processor. Four months after surgery seven of 17 patients (group I) are able to understand on average 42.7 words per minute by speech tracking without lip-reading. Six patients (group II) recognise 69.2% of vowels and 42.5% of consonants by speech processor alone. Four patients (group III) can correctly repeat only vowels (52.3%) without lip-reading, but using the speech processor together with lip reading they have an improvement in consonant understanding of 37.9% and under freefield conditions they are able to understand up to 17.8% numbers of the Freiburg speech test.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Lehnhardt, R D Battmer, K Nakahodo, R Laszig. 1986. [Cochlear implants].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3755709/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Cochlear implantation].

Since the Israeli cochlear implant program was started in June 1989, 74 candidates have been evaluated for implantation. The main causes for hearing loss were meningitis (16 patients), aminoglycoside toxicity (9), congenital (6), viral (e.g. mumps) (6), and middle ear infection. Candidates were rejected mainly due to psychosocial factors (40%) and audiological parameters (30%). 16 postlingual deaf were implanted. In 7 of them (43.7%) the results were excellent, in 4 (25.0%) good, in 3 (18.7%) fair; 1 case is currently in a training program and 1 is a failure. There were 2 major complications: facial nerve palsy which necessitated surgical decompression, and insertion of the electrodes into the hypotympanic air cells, corrected by reoperation.

Cochlear Implants

Performance over time with a nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant.

This investigation determined whether the audiological performance of cochlear implant users varied with experience. Thirteen Nucleus and 14 Ineraid subjects were evaluated at 1, 9, and 18 mo after cochlear implant connection. Ten Nucleus and five Ineraid subjects were tested at 30 mo. On average, the ability of the subjects to recognize words and phonemes in an audition-only condition improved during the first 9 mo, as did their ability to recognize spondees in noise. The phoneme scores continued to improve during the next 9 mo. Environmental sound recognition improved gradually; significant improvement from the 1 mo scores was not noted until 18 mo. About half of the subjects who demonstrated poor word recognition at 1 mo showed significantly improved percent word correct scores by 18 mo. The Nucleus and Ineraid subjects did not differ in their patterns of change over time. An information transmission analysis performed on the subjects' consonant confusion matrices showed relatively little change for the nasality and place features during the first 18 mo, and relatively large change for the voice, duration, and frication features. Most improvement in the feature scores occurred during the first 9 mo.

Cochlear Implants