A staggered multiple baseline single-subject experimental design was used to assess the effectiveness of a postimplant intensive aural rehabilitation program. Four adults with an acquired profound hearing loss were provided with a Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant. The subjects completed a speech perception test protocol once before their cochlear implant operation and at 3-month intervals for a period of 12 months postimplantation. Each subject participated in a 12-week postimplant intensive aural rehabilitation program. A comparison of the prerehabilitation and postrehabilitation results failed to reveal any systematic improvements in performance on the speech perception tests that could be attributed unequivocally to the aural rehabilitation program.
LansingCRDavisJM. Early versus delayed speech perception training for adult cochlear implant users: Initial results. J Acad Rehabil Audiol1988; 21: 11–28.
8.
ClarkGMBlarneyPJBrownAM. The University of Melbourne–Nucleus multielectrode cochlear implant. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1988.
9.
GantzBJTylerRSKnutsonJF. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope1988; 98: 1100–6.
10.
DormanMFHannleyMTDankowskiKSmithLMcCandlessG. Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear1989; 10: 44–9.
11.
TylerRSMooreBCJKukFK. Performance of some of the better cochlear-implant patients. J Speech Hear Res1989; 32: 887–911.
12.
TylerRSLowderMWOttoSRPreeceJPGantzBJMcCabeBF. Initial Iowa results with the multichannel cochlear implant from Melbourne. J Speech Hear Res1984; 27: 596–604.
13.
OsbergerMJ. Audiological rehabilitation with cochlear implants and tactile aids. ASHA1990; 32: 38–43.
14.
BoothroydAHaninLWaltzmanS. Development of speech perception skills in cochlear implantees. In: Proceedings of the Rehabilitation Society of North America (RESNA) 10th Annual Conference, San Jose, California, 1987. Washington, DC: RESNA, 1987: 428–30.
15.
SpivakLGShapiroWHWaltzmanSBCohenNL. Cochlear implant performance as a function of time [Abstract]. ASHA1987; 29: 81.
McReynoldsLVThompsonCK. Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part I: Review of the basics of single-subject designs. J Speech Hear Disord1986; 51: 194–203.
18.
WaltzmanSBBoothroydALevittH. Evaluation of rehabilitation strategies with cochlear implant patients: Preliminary report. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol1987; 96(suppl 128): 83–4.
19.
RvachewS. Application of single subject randomization designs to communicative disorders research. Hum Commun Canada1988; 12: 7–13.
20.
TylerRSPreeceJPLowderMW. The Iowa Cochlear Implant Test Battery. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, 1983.
21.
DeFilippoCLScottBL. A method for training and evaluating the reception of ongoing speech. J Acoust Soc Am1978; 63: 1186–91.
22.
KaplanHBallySJGarretsonC. Speechreading: A way to improve understanding. 2nd ed.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
23.
BoothroydA. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res1984; 27: 128–34.
24.
MatthiesMLCarneyAE. A modified speech tracking procedure as a communicative performance measure. J Speech Hear Res1988; 31: 394–404.
25.
Tye-MurrayNTylerRS. A critique of continuous discourse tracking as a test procedure. J Speech Hear Disord1988; 53: 226–31.
MacCarthyPCulpepperNB. The adult remediation process. In: AlpinerJGMcCarthyPA, eds. Rehabilitative audiology: Children and adults. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1987: 305–41.
29.
ErberNP. Communication therapy for hearing-impaired adults. Abbotsford, Australia: Clavis Publishing, 1988.
