Speech perception and auditory performance in Finnish adult cochlear implant users

References

• Archbold S, Lutman ME, Marshall DH (1995) Categories of auditory performance. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 104 (Suppl. 166): 312–314.
   Google Scholar
• Archbold S, Lutman ME, Nikolopoulos T (1998) Categories of auditory performance: inter-user relia-bility. British Journal of Audiology 32: 7–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beynon AJ, Snik AF, van den Broek P (2003) Comparison of different speech coding strategies using a disability-based inventory and speech perception tests in quiet and in noise. Otology & Neuro-tology 24: 392–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Society of Audiology (1988) British Society of Audiology recommendation. Descriptors for pure tone audiograms, technical note. British Journal of Audiology 22:123.
   Google Scholar
• Carter R, Hailey D (1999) Economic evaluation of the cochlear implant. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15: 520–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng AK, Niparko JK (1999) Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-analysis. Archives of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery 125: 1214–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen NL, Waltzman SB, Fisher SG (1993) A prospective randomized study of cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine 328: 233–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danhauer JL, Lucks LE, Abdala C (1986) A survey of speech and other auditory perception assessment materials used by cochlear implant centers. Journal of Auditory Research 26: 75–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S (1991) The role of non-auditory factors in measured and self-reported disability. Acta Otolaryngologica (Suppl. 476): 249–256.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S (1999) Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. Journal of American Academy of Audiology 10: 80–103.
   Google Scholar
• High WS, Fairbanks G, Glorig A (1964) Scale for self-assessment of hearing handicap. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 29: 215–230.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hinderink JB, Krabbe PFM, van den Broek P (2000) Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants. The Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery 123: 756–765.
   Google Scholar
• Joore MA, Van Der Stel H, Peters HJ, Boas GM, Anteunis LJ (2003) The cost-effectiveness of hearing- aid fitting in the Netherlands. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery 129: 297–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karinen PJ, Sorri MJ, Välimaa TT, Huttunen KH, Löppönen HJ (2001) Cochlear implant patients and quality of life. Scandinavian Audiology 30 (Suppl. 52): 48–50.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe PF, Hinderink JB, van den Broek P (2000) The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16: 864–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Festen JM, Tobi H (1996) The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiology 35: 277–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kou BS, Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM (1994) Subjective benefits reported by adult Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant users. Journal of Otolaryngology 23: 8–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ling, D (1988) Foundations of spoken language for hearing impaired children. Washington DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
   Google Scholar
• Lonka E (1993) Aikuinen huonokuuloinen ja huulioluvun oppiminen — huuliolukumenetelmän seurantatutkimus. [An adult with a hearing-impairment learning speechreading — a follow-up study on speechreading]. Licentiate study in Logopedics, University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen C (1974) Construction and evaluation of an audio-visual test (the Helen-test). Scandi-navian Audiology (Suppl. 4): 67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Luxford WM, Allum D, Balkany T et al. (2001) The ad hoc Subcommitee of the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 124: 125–126.
   Google Scholar
• Noble WG, Atherley GRC (1970) The hearing measure scale: a questionnaire for the assessment of auditory disability. Journal of Auditory Research 10: 229–250.
   Google Scholar
• Owens E, Kessler D, Witte Raggio M, Schubert E (1985) Analysis and revision of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities (MAC) battery. Ear & Hearing 6: 280–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palva T (1952) Finnish speech audiometry: methods and clinical applications. Academic disser-tation, University of Turku.
   Google Scholar
• Rihkanen H (1990) Subjective benefit of communication aids evaluated by postlingually deaf adults. British Journal of Audiology 24: 161–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephens D, Hetu R (1991) Impairment, disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Audiology 30: 185–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sulkala H, Karjalainen M (1992) Finnish descriptive grammars. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH (1995) Cochlear implantation in the UK 1990-1994. Report by the MRC institute of hearing research on the evaluation of the national cochlear implant programme. London: HMSO Publications Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Tannahill JC (1979) The hearing handicap scale as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 44:91–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Välimaa TT, Sorri MJ (2000) Speech perception after multichannel cochlear implantation in Finnish-speaking postlingually deafened adults. Scandinavian Audiology 29: 276–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa T, Sorri M (2001) Speech perception and functional benefit after cochlear implantation: a multicentre survey. Scandinavian Audiology 30: 112–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa TT, Määttä TK, Löppönen HJ, Sorri MJ (2002a) Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: vowels. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 45: 1039–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa TT, Määttä TK, Löppönen HJ, Sorri MJ (2002b) Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 45: 1055–1069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ventry IM, Weinstein BE (1982) The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear & Hearing 3:128–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, Telian SA (1996) Self-report of cochlear implant use and satisfaction by prelingually deafened adults. Ear & Hearing 17: 198–210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar