Pickett J M, McFarland W
J Speech Hear Res. 1985 Mar;28(1):134-50. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2801.134.
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.
本文回顾了通过植入电极和通过触觉辅助设备进行语音感知的数据。从为交流提供的辅助设备的数量和类型方面对这两种方法进行了比较。所讨论的相关问题包括多通道与单通道植入物的性能水平、岬电刺激器与植入物、残余听力的利用、儿童植入物以及结合听觉植入物和触觉信息的互补系统的可能设计。植入物研究与触觉研究中使用的测试方法和受试者的多样性使得无法对语音感知性能进行明确比较。然而，从现有数据来看，目前以及在可预见的未来，这两种方法都只能为唇读提供有限的帮助。多通道植入受试者的言语接受测试结果平均而言比单通道受试者更好。然而，在使用简单句子的测试中，最佳的单通道结果与最佳的多通道结果相当。同一植入物的受试者之间存在很大差异。训练有素的受试者的触觉辅助设备性能似乎与较好的植入物受试者相当。
