{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017823639774859287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.839743589743589, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of benefit from vibrotactile aid and cochlear implant for postlinguistically deaf adults

Four postlinguistically deaf adults were evaluated presurgically with a one‐ or two‐channel vibrotactile aid and postsurgically with a multichannel, multielectrode, intracochlear implant. Although the vibrotactile aid provided awareness of sound and enhanced flow of conversation, benefit to lipreading was small on videotaped tests and speech tracking. Scores on recorded, sound‐only speech tests were not significantly above chance except in discrimination of noise from voice. With the cochlear implant, benefit to lipreading was significantly greater than with the vibrotactile aid, and scores on sound‐only tests were significantly above chance. Communication was markedly better with the implant than with the vibrotactile aid. In counseling those who get no benefit from a hearing aid, the results of this study provide data on the amount of benefit one‐ or two‐channel vibrotactile aids provide postlinguistically deaf adults who are subsequently implanted.