Music Perception with Temporal Cues in Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Kong, Ying‐Yee; Cruz, Rachel J.; Jones, Jeff; Zeng, Fan‐Gang

doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000120365.97792.2f

Cited by 325 publications

(344 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

311

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, many other factors can contribute to CI users' melodic pitch perception (e.g., acoustic frequency allocation, electrode location, pattern of nerve survival, experience, etc.). The number of spectral channels has been shown to limit CI performance in difficult listening situations (Friesen et al, 2001;Kong et al, 2004;Luo et al, 2007). Data from the present study and from Fu and Nogaki (2005) suggest that channel interaction may also limit CI performance where perception of pitch cues may be beneficial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants

Crew

Galvin²,

Fu³

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cochlear implants (CIs), melodic pitch perception is limited by the spectral resolution, which in turn is limited by the number of spectral channels as well as interactions between adjacent channels. This study investigated the effect of channel interaction on melodic contour identification (MCI) in normal-hearing subjects listening to novel 16-channel sinewave vocoders that simulated channel interaction in CI signal processing. MCI performance worsened as the degree of channel interaction increased. Although greater numbers of spectral channels may be beneficial to melodic pitch perception, the present data suggest that it is also important to improve independence among spectral channels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Kong et al (2004) observed that decreasing the number of spectral channels influenced melody recognition. Less is known about the effects of channel interaction on music perception, specifically melodic pitch perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants

Crew

Galvin²,

Fu³

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While implant listeners generally are quite good at perceiving the rhythmic cues in music (Gfeller et al, 1998;Kong et al, 2004;McDermott, 2004), their recognition of melodies is usually much poorer than normal, especially when the rhythmic or lyrical cues are not available (Gantz et al, 2005;Kong et al 2004;Gfeller et al, 2002). The residual low-frequency acoustic hearing of A+E patients can provide assistance in pitch perception in these patients.…”

Section: A+e Results For Musicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Certainly listening to music is one situation where implant listeners have been shown to have severe perceptual deficits (e.g. Gfeller et al, 2002;Kong et al, 2004). For example in Gfeller et al (2002), while normalhearing listeners had no difficulty in discriminating piano notes one semitone apart (adjacent piano keys, approximately 6% frequency difference), implant listeners' ability to discriminate pitches was generally much poorer, the typical threshold was 1/2 octave (6 semitones), with some listeners requiring as much as 2 octaves difference between notes for discrimination.…”

Section: Shortcomings Of Electrical Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of this review is the strategy of preserving residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear to provide combined electrical stimulation and acoustic hearing as a rehabilitative strategy for sensorineural hearing loss. This chapter will concentrate on research done with the Iowa/Nucleus 10mm Hybrid device, but we will also attempt to summarize strategies and results from other groups around the world who use slightly different approaches. A number of studies have shown that preserving residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is a realistic goal for many patients with severe high-frequency hearing loss. The addition of the electric stimulation to their existing acoustic hearing can provide increased speech recognition for these patients. In addition, the preserved acoustic hearing can offer considerable advantages, as compared to a traditional cochlear implant, for tasks such as speech recognition in backgrounds or appreciation of music and other situations where the poor frequency resolution of electric stimulation has been a disadvantage.

show abstract

“…Sound can be separated into temporal envelope and fine structure components. The temporal envelope consists of amplitude information and plays an important role in speech intelligibility, whereas fine structure corresponds to spectral cues and is more heavily utilized during perception of pitch, music, and sound localization 11, 29, 30, 31. Unfortunately, fine structure processing (FSP) has not been incorporated into the majority of current processing strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users

Caldwell

Jiam

Limb

2017

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesCochlear implants (CIs) have successfully provided speech perception to individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. Recent research has focused on more challenging acoustic stimuli such as music and voice emotion. The purpose of this review is to evaluate and describe sound quality in CI users with the purposes of summarizing novel findings and crucial information about how CI users experience complex sounds.Data SourcesHere we review the existing literature on PubMed and Scopus to present what is known about perceptual sound quality in CI users, discuss existing measures of sound quality, explore how sound quality may be effectively studied, and examine potential strategies of improving sound quality in the CI population.ResultsSound quality, defined here as the perceived richness of an auditory stimulus, is an attribute of implant‐mediated listening that remains poorly studied. Sound quality is distinct from appraisal, which is generally defined as the subjective likability or pleasantness of a sound. Existing studies suggest that sound quality perception in the CI population is limited by a range of factors, most notably pitch distortion and dynamic range compression. Although there are currently very few objective measures of sound quality, the CI‐MUSHRA has been used as a means of evaluating sound quality. There exist a number of promising strategies to improve sound quality perception in the CI population including apical cochlear stimulation, pitch tuning, and noise reduction processing strategies.ConclusionsIn the published literature, sound quality perception is severely limited among CI users. Future research should focus on developing systematic, objective, and quantitative sound quality metrics and designing therapies to mitigate poor sound quality perception in CI users.Level of EvidenceNA

show abstract

Music Perception with Temporal Cues in Acoustic and Electric Hearing

Cited by 325 publications

References 38 publications

Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants

Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants

Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing

Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About