The research concerning the visual perception in deaf subjects has led to contradictory results: Deaf subjects have been reported to show enhanced visual perceptual skills compared to hearing subjects (Neville & Lawson, 1987). On the other hand, there are indications that acoustic deprivation may produce an inferiority in all sensory modalities (Myklebust, 1964). These contradictions may be due to methodological differences: The investigators selected different conditions (e.g. attentive/nonattentive) and various samples of deaf subjects (e.g., different age, language, and aetiology groups). In our study, we tested a large sample of deaf subjects with texture segmentation and visual search conditions, which allowed us to differentiate between visual processing with and without attentional load. All deaf subjects had profound hearing loss within the first year of life. Our results suggest that the visual processing capacity of deaf children and adolescents does not exceed that of age- and gender-matched hearing subjects. Rather, deaf school children show deficits in visual processing in conditions with and without attentional load. Age (6 to 20 years), language used (oral, sign, oral + sign), and aetiology for deafness (genetic, maternal rubella, perinatal, infection in the first year of life, unknown) did not consistently influence the results. The deficits in visual processing were partially compensated for in adult deaf subjects. The performances of deaf and hearing adults in trials that could be solved preattentively did not differ statistically significantly, but in attention-dependent trials the deaf subjects were more efficient than the hearing controls. We conclude that visual compensation for deafness is limited to attention-dependent tasks and does not develop until adulthood.

No abstract

Objective: To assess if speech perception improves after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 processor. Method: In this retrospective study, 45 subjects (54 ears) implanted with a cochlear implant were upgraded from the TEMPO+ (continuous interleaved sampling + coding strategy) to the OPUS 2 processor (fine structure processing). Before the upgrade, patients were tested with the Freiburg monosyllable (FM) and the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser (HSM) sentence test in quiet and in noise. Four weeks after the upgrade, subjects were again assessed with the same tests. Results: In quiet, mean FM results improved from 62.0% (±21.3%) to 77.8% (±15.2%) and HSM sentences from 69.9% (±26.1%) to 77.9% (±22.1%). In noise, mean FM results improved from 27.3% (±17.1%) to 52.1% (±18.6%) and HSM sentences from 40.4% (±29.1%) to 58.0% (±26.1%). The upgrade to the OPUS 2 was statistically very significant for all speech perception tests (p < 0.001). Additionally, subjects stated that the OPUS 2 initially sounded ‘awkward’ but that quality and speech perception improved after a certain adaptation time. Conclusion: Speech understanding in quiet and noise significantly improved with the OPUS 2 in all speech perception tests.

Over the last years, indications for cochlear implants (CIs) have changed dramatically. The benefits depend on the preconditions of the individual patient as well as on the subsequent (re)habilitation. Therefore, many variables influencing the hearing and speech perception of a CI user must be kept in mind. As an example, the special situation of children having Turkish as their mother tongue is described. The most convincing argument concerning (re)habilitation is its benefit. Indeed, this benefit represents the final standard of quality and serves as the yardstick for standard assessments of (re)habilitation quality. CI (re)habilitation includes medical, pedagogical, audiological, hearing and speech, and psychological therapeutic aspects.

No abstract