Mario Svirsky

Prof. Mario Svirsky

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

40Years (1987-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2000 in Psychological Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
ARAmy M. Robbins
Amy M. Robbins
KKKaren Iler Kirk
Karen Iler Kirk
DPDavid B. Pisoni
David B. Pisoni
RMRichard T. Miyamoto
Richard T. Miyamoto
Although cochlear implants improve the ability of profoundly deaf children to understand speech, critics claim that the published literature does not document even a single case of a child who has developed a linguistic system based on input from an implant. Thus, it is of clinical and scientific importance to determine whether cochlear implants facilitate the development of English language skills. The English language skills of prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants were measured before and after implantation. We found that the rate of language development after implantation exceeded that expected from unimplanted deaf children (p < .001) and was similar to that of children with normal hearing. Despite a large amount of individual variability, the best performers in the implanted group seem to be developing an oral linguistic system based largely on auditory input obtained from a cochlear implant.

18 June 2004 in Audiology and Neurotology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
STSu-Wooi Teoh
Su-Wooi Teoh
HNHeidi Neuburger
Heidi Neuburger
Like any other surgery requiring anesthesia, cochlear implantation in the first few years of life carries potential risks, which makes it important to assess the potential benefits. This study introduces a new method to assess the effect of age at implantation on cochlear implant outcomes: developmental trajectory analysis (DTA). DTA compares curves representing change in an outcome measure over time (i.e. developmental trajectories) for two groups of children that differ along a potentially important independent variable (e.g. age at intervention). This method was used to compare language development and speech perception outcomes in children who received cochlear implants in the second, third or fourth year of life. Within this range of age at implantation, it was found that implantation before the age of 2 resulted in speech perception and language advantages that were significant both from a statistical and a practical point of view. Additionally, the present results are consistent with the existence of a ‘sensitive period’ for language development, a gradual decline in language acquisition skills as a function of age.

1 December 1992 in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJoseph S. Perkell
Joseph S. Perkell
MCMarc H. Cohen
Marc H. Cohen
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
MMMelanie L. Matthies
Melanie L. Matthies
IGIñaki Garabieta
Iñaki Garabieta
MJMichel T. T. Jackson
Michel T. T. Jackson
This paper describes two electromagnetic midsagittal articulometer (EMMA) systems that were developed for transducing articulatory movements during speech production. Alternating magnetic fields are generated by transmitter coils that are mounted in an assembly that fits on the head of a speaker. The fields induce alternating voltages in a number of small transducer coils that are attached to atriculators in the midline plane, inside and outside the vocal tract. The transducers are connected by fine lead wires to receiver electronics whose output voltages are processed to yield measures of transducer locations as a function of time. Measurement error can arise with this method, because as the articulators move and change shape, the transducers can undergo a varying amount of rotational misalignment with respect to the transmitter axes; both systems are designed to correct for transducer misalignment. For this purpose, one system uses two transmitters and biaxial transducers; the other uses three transmitters and single-axis transducers. The systems have been compared with one another in terms of their performance, human subjects compatibility, and ease of use. Both systems can produce useful midsagittal-plane data on articulator movement, and each one has a specific set of advantages and limitations. (Two commercially available systems are also described briefly for comparison purposes.) If appropriate experimental controls are used, the three-transmitter system is preferable for practical reasons.

1 August 2008 in Ear & Hearing
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RHRachael Frush Holt
Rachael Frush Holt
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
Objectives: Since the advent of cochlear implants, age at implantation has declined as investigators report greater benefit the younger a child is implanted. Infants younger than 12 mos currently are excluded from Food and Drug Administration clinical trials, but have been implanted with Food and Drug Administration-approved devices. With a chance that an infant without profound hearing loss could be implanted because of the limitations of the diagnostic measures used with this population and the potential for additional anesthetic risks to infants younger than 1-yr-old, it is prudent to evaluate benefit in the youngest cochlear implant recipients. The goals of this research were to investigate whether significant gains are made by children implanted before 1-yr-old relative to those implanted at later ages, while controlling for potential covariates, and whether there is behavioral evidence for sensitive periods in spoken language development. It was expected that children implanted before age 1 yr would have more advanced spoken language skills than children implanted at later ages; there would be a negative relationship between age at implantation and rate of spoken language development, allowing for an examination of the effects of sensitive periods in spoken language development; and these trends would remain despite accounting for participant characteristics and experiences that might influence spoken language outcomes. Design: Ninety-six children with congenital profound sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally and no additional identified disabilities who were implanted before the age of 4 yrs were stratified into four groups based on age at implantation. Children's spoken language development was followed for at least 2 yrs after device activation. Spoken language scores and rate of development were evaluated along with four covariates (unaided pure-tone average, communication mode, gender, and estimated family income) as a function of age at implantation. Results: In general, the developmental trajectories of children implanted earlier were significantly better than those of children implanted later. However, the advantage of implanting children before 1-yr old versus waiting until the child was between 1 and 2 yrs was small and only was evident in receptive language development, not expressive language or word recognition development. Age at implantation did not significantly influence the rate of the word recognition development, but did influence the rate of both receptive and expressive language acquisition: children implanted earlier in life had faster rates of spoken language acquisition than children implanted later in life. Conclusions: Although in general earlier cochlear implantation led to better outcomes, there were few differences in outcome between the small sample of six children implanted before 12 mos of age and those implanted at 13 to 24 mos. Significant performance differences remained among the other age groups despite accounting for potential confounds. Further, oral language development progressed faster in children implanted earlier rather than later in of life (up to age 4 yrs), whereas the rate of open-set speech recognition development was similar. Together, the results suggest that there is a sensitive period for spoken language during the first 4 yrs of life, but not necessarily for word recognition development during the same period.

1 September 2015 in Ear & Hearing
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DLDavid M. Landsberger
David M. Landsberger
MSMaja Svrakic
Maja Svrakic
JRJ. Thomas Jr. Roland
J. Thomas Jr. Roland
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
Objectives: Commercially available cochlear implant systems attempt to deliver frequency information going down to a few hundred Hertz, but the electrode arrays are not designed to reach the most apical regions of the cochlea, which correspond to these low frequencies. This may cause a mismatch between the frequencies presented by a cochlear implant electrode array and the frequencies represented at the corresponding location in a normal-hearing cochlea. In the following study, the mismatch between the frequency presented at a given cochlear angle and the frequency expected by an acoustic hearing ear at the corresponding angle is examined for the cochlear implant systems that are most commonly used in the United States. Design: The angular insertion of each of the electrodes on four different electrode arrays (MED-EL Standard, MED-EL Flex28, Advanced Bionics HiFocus 1J, and Cochlear Contour Advance) was estimated from X-ray. For the angular location of each electrode on each electrode array, the predicted spiral ganglion frequency was estimated. The predicted spiral ganglion frequency was compared with the center frequency provided by the corresponding electrode using the manufacturer’s default frequency-to-electrode allocation. Results: Differences across devices were observed for the place of stimulation for frequencies below 650 Hz. Longer electrode arrays (i.e., the MED-EL Standard and Flex28) demonstrated smaller deviations from the spiral ganglion map than the other electrode arrays. For insertion angles up to approximately 270°, the frequencies presented at a given location were typically approximately an octave below what would be expected by a spiral ganglion frequency map, while the deviations were larger for angles deeper than 270°. For frequencies above 650 Hz, the frequency to angle relationship was consistent across all four electrode models. Conclusions: A mismatch was observed between the predicted frequency and the default frequency provided by every electrode on all electrode arrays. The mismatch can be reduced by changing the default frequency allocations, inserting electrodes deeper into the cochlea, or allowing cochlear implant users to adapt to the mismatch. Further studies are required to fully assess the clinical significance of the frequency mismatch.

1 March 2016 in Neuron
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MLMichael A. Long
Michael A. Long
KKKalman A. Katlowitz
Kalman A. Katlowitz
MSMario Svirsky
Mario Svirsky
RCRachel C. Clary
Rachel C. Clary
TBTara McAllister Byun
Tara McAllister Byun
JGJeremy D.W. Greenlee
Jeremy D.W. Greenlee