Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.28 134-150 March 1985.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pickett, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pickett, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Auditory Implants and Tactile Aids for the Profoundly Deaf

J. M. Pickett 1
William McFarland 1

1 Gallaudet College, Washington, DC

This paper reviews data on speech perception via implanted electrodes and via tactile aids. The two approaches are compared in terms of amount and types of aid provided to communication. Related issues discussed are the performance levels with multi-versus single-channel implants, promontory electrical stimulators versus implants, use of minimal residual hearing, implants for children, and the possible design of complementary systems combining auditory implant and tactile information. The diversity of the test methods and subjects used in implant versus tactile research precludes definitive comparisons of speech perception performance. However, it appears from the available data that, at present and for the foreseeable future, neither approach can provide more than a modest aid to lipreading. Speech reception test results from multichannel-implanted subjects are better, on the average, than for single-channel subjects. However, the best single-channel results are comparable to the best multichannel in tests using simple sentences. There is great variation among subjects with the same implant, Tactile aid performance by highly practiced subjects seems comparable to that of the better implant subjects.

Submitted on November 30, 1983
Accepted on September 27, 1984


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?