BibTex RIS Cite

COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS

Year 2002, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 175 - 179, 03.12.2016

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the speech perception and speech understanding of the prelingually deafened cochlear implant users.
Methods: The study consisted of nine
prelingually deafened adults implanted with Nucleus 24 M cochlear implant. Auditory performance was measured using a battery of closed and open set speech tests.
Results: Although no closed set and open set speech recognition was possible before implantation, a significant improvement over time was found at the closed set speech tests for all the patients. Three patients demonstrated some improvement of open set speech performance. All except one reported subjective benefits and satisfaction from the implantation.
Conclusion: Speech recognition evaluation is important but it is only one aspect in cochlear implant success criteria. In order to decide precisely about the benefits one can get from the implant, it may be useful to evaluate the patient in his/her daily activities, and his/her degree of incorporation in social life.
Key Words : Cochlear implant, Prelingual

References

  • I. Gantz BJ, Tye Murray hi, Tyler l<S. Word recognition performance with single-channel and multichannel cochlear implants.Am J Otol 1989;10:91-94.
  • 7 8
  • C o c h le a r im p la n t re s u lts in p re lin g u a l a d u lts
  • Skinner M, Holden L, Holden T, et al. Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the wearable speech processor ( WSFIII) and mini speech processor ( MSP ) of the nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant .Ear Hear 1991;12:3-22.
  • Cohen HL, Waltzman SB, Roland TJ,et al. Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans Affairs cochlear implant recipients.Am J Otol 1997; 18:462- 465.
  • Clark GM, Busby PA, Roberts S/l, et al. Preliminary results for the cochlear corporation multielectrode intracochlear electrode in six prelingually deaf patients. Am J Otol 1987 ;8:234-239.
  • Dawson PW, Blamy PJ, Rowland LC,et al.Cochlear implants in children,adolescents and prelinguistically deafened adults-.speech
  • perception. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:401 - 417.
  • Waltzman SB, Cohen HI., Shapiro WH. Use of multichannel cochlear Implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population. Laryngoscope 1992; 102:395-399.
  • Zwalon TA, Rileny PR, Telian SA. Self report of cochlear implant use and satisfaction by prelingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 1996;17:198-210.
  • Fryauf-Bertschy II,Tyler RS, Re Isay DMR, et al.Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened childrerr.the influences of age at implant and lenght of device use 1997;40:183-199.
  • Gence Z. The standardization of the speech tests for cochlear implant patients in Marmara University Medical School, Department of Audiology,2001, unpublished thesis.
Year 2002, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 175 - 179, 03.12.2016

Abstract

References

  • I. Gantz BJ, Tye Murray hi, Tyler l<S. Word recognition performance with single-channel and multichannel cochlear implants.Am J Otol 1989;10:91-94.
  • 7 8
  • C o c h le a r im p la n t re s u lts in p re lin g u a l a d u lts
  • Skinner M, Holden L, Holden T, et al. Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the wearable speech processor ( WSFIII) and mini speech processor ( MSP ) of the nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant .Ear Hear 1991;12:3-22.
  • Cohen HL, Waltzman SB, Roland TJ,et al. Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans Affairs cochlear implant recipients.Am J Otol 1997; 18:462- 465.
  • Clark GM, Busby PA, Roberts S/l, et al. Preliminary results for the cochlear corporation multielectrode intracochlear electrode in six prelingually deaf patients. Am J Otol 1987 ;8:234-239.
  • Dawson PW, Blamy PJ, Rowland LC,et al.Cochlear implants in children,adolescents and prelinguistically deafened adults-.speech
  • perception. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:401 - 417.
  • Waltzman SB, Cohen HI., Shapiro WH. Use of multichannel cochlear Implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population. Laryngoscope 1992; 102:395-399.
  • Zwalon TA, Rileny PR, Telian SA. Self report of cochlear implant use and satisfaction by prelingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 1996;17:198-210.
  • Fryauf-Bertschy II,Tyler RS, Re Isay DMR, et al.Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened childrerr.the influences of age at implant and lenght of device use 1997;40:183-199.
  • Gence Z. The standardization of the speech tests for cochlear implant patients in Marmara University Medical School, Department of Audiology,2001, unpublished thesis.
There are 12 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Original Research
Authors

Ufuk Derinsu This is me

Ayça Ciprut This is me

Ferda Akdaş This is me

Publication Date December 3, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2002 Volume: 15 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Derinsu, U., Ciprut, A., & Akdaş, F. (2016). COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS. Marmara Medical Journal, 15(3), 175-179.
AMA Derinsu U, Ciprut A, Akdaş F. COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS. Marmara Med J. March 2016;15(3):175-179.
Chicago Derinsu, Ufuk, Ayça Ciprut, and Ferda Akdaş. “COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS”. Marmara Medical Journal 15, no. 3 (March 2016): 175-79.
EndNote Derinsu U, Ciprut A, Akdaş F (March 1, 2016) COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS. Marmara Medical Journal 15 3 175–179.
IEEE U. Derinsu, A. Ciprut, and F. Akdaş, “COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS”, Marmara Med J, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 175–179, 2016.
ISNAD Derinsu, Ufuk et al. “COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS”. Marmara Medical Journal 15/3 (March 2016), 175-179.
JAMA Derinsu U, Ciprut A, Akdaş F. COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS. Marmara Med J. 2016;15:175–179.
MLA Derinsu, Ufuk et al. “COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS”. Marmara Medical Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, 2016, pp. 175-9.
Vancouver Derinsu U, Ciprut A, Akdaş F. COCHLEAR IMPLANT RESULTS IN PRELINGUAL ADULTS. Marmara Med J. 2016;15(3):175-9.