Abstract:Having impaired hearing decreases performance compared to NH across both chord discrimination and timbre perception tasks. For chord discrimination, having acoustic hearing improved performance compared to electric hearing only. Timbre perception distinguished those with acoustic hearing from those with electric hearing. Those with bilateral acoustic hearing, even if damaged, performed significantly better on this task than those requiring electrical stimulation, which may indicate that CI sound processing fai… Show more
“…However, other studies have not shown significant bimodal advantages for music perception. Prentiss et al [ 50 ] found a significant bimodal advantage for music chord perception, but not for musical timbre perception. Bartov and Most [ 51 ] found a bimodal advantage for song identification when listeners were presented with simple, tonal representations, but not for full arrangements, a cappella versions, or melodic and rhythmic versions.…”
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the benefits of residual hair cell function for speech and music perception in bimodal pediatric Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Design Speech and music performance was measured in 35 Mandarin-speaking pediatric CI users for unilateral (CI-only) and bimodal listening. Mandarin speech perception was measured for vowels, consonants, lexical tones, and sentences in quiet. Music perception was measured for melodic contour identification (MCI). Results Combined electric and acoustic hearing significantly improved MCI and Mandarin tone recognition performance, relative to CI-only performance. For MCI, performance was significantly better with bimodal listening for all semitone spacing conditions (p < 0.05 in all cases). For tone recognition, bimodal performance was significantly better only for tone 2 (rising; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between CI-only and CI + HA for vowel, consonant, or sentence recognition. Conclusions The results suggest that combined electric and acoustic hearing can significantly improve perception of music and Mandarin tones in pediatric Mandarin-speaking CI patients. Music and lexical tone perception depends strongly on pitch perception, and the contralateral acoustic hearing coming from residual hair cell function provided pitch cues that are generally not well preserved in electric hearing.
“…However, other studies have not shown significant bimodal advantages for music perception. Prentiss et al [ 50 ] found a significant bimodal advantage for music chord perception, but not for musical timbre perception. Bartov and Most [ 51 ] found a bimodal advantage for song identification when listeners were presented with simple, tonal representations, but not for full arrangements, a cappella versions, or melodic and rhythmic versions.…”
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the benefits of residual hair cell function for speech and music perception in bimodal pediatric Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Design Speech and music performance was measured in 35 Mandarin-speaking pediatric CI users for unilateral (CI-only) and bimodal listening. Mandarin speech perception was measured for vowels, consonants, lexical tones, and sentences in quiet. Music perception was measured for melodic contour identification (MCI). Results Combined electric and acoustic hearing significantly improved MCI and Mandarin tone recognition performance, relative to CI-only performance. For MCI, performance was significantly better with bimodal listening for all semitone spacing conditions (p < 0.05 in all cases). For tone recognition, bimodal performance was significantly better only for tone 2 (rising; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between CI-only and CI + HA for vowel, consonant, or sentence recognition. Conclusions The results suggest that combined electric and acoustic hearing can significantly improve perception of music and Mandarin tones in pediatric Mandarin-speaking CI patients. Music and lexical tone perception depends strongly on pitch perception, and the contralateral acoustic hearing coming from residual hair cell function provided pitch cues that are generally not well preserved in electric hearing.
“…However, we recognize that it is possible that the participants' answer to this question may be different when considering various circumstances. This may be particularly true for tasks of music perception and appreciation for which acoustic hearing yields significant benefit over electric hearing alone (e.g., Kong et al, 2004;Dorman et al, 2008;El Fata et al, 2009;Gfeller et al, 2012;Kong et al, 2012;Prentiss et al, 2015;Crew et al, 2015). Further we did not document the underlying etiology of hearing loss for our participants.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many successful bimodal listeners report that the electric signal of the CI provides the base for their speech understanding, but the contralateral acoustic signal provides a richer, fuller, and more natural sound that provides information not delivered electrically (Berrettini et al 2010). Furthermore, the addition of acoustic hearing to the CI has been shown to yield significantly better music perception on tasks of chord, melody, and melodic contour recognition as well as timbre recognition as compared to the CI alone (e.g., Kong et al, 2004;Dorman et al, 2008;El Fata et al, 2009;Gfeller et al, 2012;Kong et al, 2012;Prentiss et al, 2015;Crew et al, 2015).…”
Objective: The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy. Design: This study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE™ 8loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" Results: This study yielded three primary findings: 1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, 2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE™ system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and 3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration. Conclusions: Clinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE™, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE™ system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure which may prove clinically useful.
“…That is, while instrument identification is a very challenging task for cochlear implant users, it is uniquely an easy task for normal hearing listeners. 16 Cochlear implant users can correctly identify instruments playing notes approximately 45% of the time while normal hearing listeners usually identify above 90%. 5 , 6 , 16 Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 16 Cochlear implant users can correctly identify instruments playing notes approximately 45% of the time while normal hearing listeners usually identify above 90%. 5 , 6 , 16 Fig. 1 Example of a single musical note.…”
ObjectiveTo investigate the contributions of envelope and fine-structure to the perception of timbre by cochlear implant (CI) users as compared to normal hearing (NH) listeners.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort comparison study. Normal hearing and cochlear implant patients were tested. Three experiments were performed in sound field using musical notes altered to affect the characteristic pitch of an instrument and the acoustic envelope. Experiment 1 assessed the ability to identify the instrument playing each note, while experiments 2 and 3 assessed the ability to discriminate the different stimuli.ResultsNormal hearing subjects performed better than CI subjects in all instrument identification tasks, reaching statistical significance for 4 of 5 stimulus conditions. Within the CI population, acoustic envelope modifications did not significantly affect instrument identification or discrimination. With envelope and pitch cues removed, fine structure discrimination performance was similar between normal hearing and CI users for the majority of conditions, but some specific instrument comparisons were significantly more challenging for CI users.ConclusionsCochlear implant users perform significantly worse than normal hearing listeners on tasks of instrument identification. However, cochlear implant listeners can discriminate differences in envelope and some fine structure components of musical instrument sounds as well as normal hearing listeners. The results indicated that certain fine structure cues are important for cochlear implant users to make discrimination judgments, and therefore may affect interpretation toward associating with a specific instrument for identification.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
