DEVELOPMENT OF HEARING PERCEPTION IN SUBJECTS WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANT
Development of speech is a highly integrative process which has to incorporate harmonic functioning of many aspects such as anatomical, physiоlogical, auditory, mental, emotional and social. Anatomical-physiological bases of hearing have been well studied. Cochlear implant is recommended in subjects who do not have any significant increase of the sound through the individual hearing amplifiers or have small benefit and also in subjects whose impairment is over 90dB to 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz.The aim of this study was to estimate the development of hearing perception in subjects with prelingual hearing impairment who used cochlear implant with regards to perception and identification of sounds from external environment. The results of the Test for development of hearing perception showed progression during the follow-up period at 6, 12 and 24 months. It was concluded that the longer the cochlear implant was used, the better results were achieved.
Keywords: impaired hearing, cochlear implant, hearing perception, speech development
2.Hays WL. A measure of predictive association. In: Hays WL, editor. Statistics for the social sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.; 1973. pp. 745–749.
3.Gold T. City University of New York Graduate Center; NY: Speech and hearing: A comparison between hard of hearing and deaf children.1978.
4.Vygotsky L. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological Processes. In: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1978.
5.Luria AR. Osnovi neurolingvistike. Beograd: Nolit; 1983.
6.Luria AR. Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1976.
7.Vasic S. Razvojni stupnjevi artikulacije, problem glasa u artikulaciji glasova. Beograd: Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja; 1985.
8.Vasic S. Psiholingvistika. Beograd: Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja; 1994.
9.Skinner MW, Clark GM, Whitfort. Evaluation of new spectral peak coding strategy for the nucleus 22 Channel cochlear implant system . Am J Otol. 1994; 15-27.
10.Wilson SJ, Rebscher SH, Kim SJ. Design for a simplified cochlear implant system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007; 54:973–982.
11.Zeng FG. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif. 2004; 8:1–34.
12.Balkany T. Nucleus freedom north american clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 136: 757–762.
13.Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol. 2004; 9: 214–223.
14.Clark GM, Hallworth RJ. A multiple electrode array for cochlear implantation in deaf patiens. Med Prog Technol. 1976; 5:127.
15.Clark GM. The University of Melburne Nucleus multielectrode coclear implant Adv Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1987; 38:1-129.
16.Clark GM. A multiple electrode array for cochlear implant. J Laryngol Otol. 1976; 90: 623-627
17.Clark GM. A multiple electrode intracochlear implant for children. ArchOtorynolaryngol.1977; 113:825-828
18.Clark GM. Desigen and fabrication of the banded electrode array. AnnNew York Acad Sci. 1983; 405:191-201
19.Patrick JF, Clark GM. The Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 1991; 12[Supp11]:S3-S9.
20.Hartmann R, Shepard R, Heid S, Klinke R. Response of the primary auditory cortex to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in the congenitally deaf white cat. Hearing Res. 1997;112:115–133.
21.Klinke R, Hartmann R, Heid S, Tillein J, Kral A. Plastic changes in the auditory cortex of congenitally deaf cats following cochlear implantation. Audiology Neurootol. 2001; 6:203–206.
22.Stelzig Y, Jacob R, Mueller J. Preliminary speech recognition results after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral hearing loss: a case series. J Med Case Reports 2011;5:343.
23.Vlstarakos P, Proikas K, Papacharalampous G, Exadaktylou I, Mochlouslis G, Nikolopoulos T. Coclear implantation under the first year of age-the outcomes. Acritical systematic reviewand meta-analysia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:119-126.
24.Rubenstein JT. How Cochlear Implants Encode Speech. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004, 12:444-448.
25.Lassaletta L, Castro A, Bastarrica M. Does music perception have on ampact on quality of life following cochlear implantation? Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(7):682-684.
26.Tait M, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold S, O’Donoghue GM. Use of the telephone in prelingually deaf children with a multichannel cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol. 2001; 22:47–52.
27.Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Boheim K. Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive? Int J Audiol. 2006;45(8): 446-53.
28.Davceva Cakar et al.;. (2014).Slushni aparati; Osnovi na audiologija. Skopje: Medicinski fakultet 2014. str. 212-216
29.Morera C, Sainz M, Cavalle L, Dela Torre A. Colaboradores: Anderson I, D’Haese P. understanding in post-lingual adults with cochlear implants. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Esp.2004; 55: 201-5.
30.Esser-Leyding, Anderson I. EARS (Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech): An internationally validated assessment tool for children provided with cochlear implants. ORL.2012; 74: 42-51.