Timbre and Speech Perception in Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners

Kong, Ying‐Yee; Mullangi, Ala; Marozeau, Jérémy

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318252caae

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the benefit in the younger listeners varied from minimal (2 percentage points) to substantial (31 percentage points). The variability is consistent with other timbre studies that show that both normal-hearing younger listeners (McAdams et al 1995; Samson et al 2002) and listeners with cochlear-implants (Kong et al 2012) vary in their weighting and use of the multiple cues (e.g., envelope, spectral shape, spectral detail) available for timbre perception. For example, Kong et al (2012) reported that three out of seven listeners with cochlear implants in one ear and residual hearing in the other ear benefited in timbre perception from the combination of electric and acoustic cues.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The variability is consistent with other timbre studies that show that both normal-hearing younger listeners (McAdams et al 1995; Samson et al 2002) and listeners with cochlear-implants (Kong et al 2012) vary in their weighting and use of the multiple cues (e.g., envelope, spectral shape, spectral detail) available for timbre perception. For example, Kong et al (2012) reported that three out of seven listeners with cochlear implants in one ear and residual hearing in the other ear benefited in timbre perception from the combination of electric and acoustic cues. While not specifically related to timbre, Arehart et al (2011) also reported substantial variability among the ability of both older and younger listeners to integrate low-pass acoustic information with high-pass vocoded information in a competing speech task.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In contrast, Gfeller et al (2006) showed that subjects with electro-acoustic stimulation (residual hearing and a short-electrode cochlear implant in the same ear) showed significantly better musical instrument identification compared to listeners with traditional long-electrode implants. Kong et al (2012) reported that the strength of timbre cues – especially for spectral shape – was much stronger for some, but not all, listeners who combine acoustic with electrical hearing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Age on Melody and Timbre Perception in Simulations of Electro-Acoustic and Cochlear-Implant Hearing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Recent evidence suggests that age might affect the ability of listeners to process fundamental frequency cues in speech, and that this difficulty might impact the ability of older listeners to use and combine envelope and fine structure cues available in simulations of electro-acoustic and cochlear-implant hearing. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether this difficulty extends to music. Specially, this study focuses on whether older listeners have a decreased ability to utilize and combine different types of cues in the perception of melody and timbre. Design A group of older listeners with normal to near-normal hearing and a group of younger listeners with normal hearing participated in the melody and timbre recognition tasks of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test. The recognition tasks were completed for five different processing conditions: 1) an unprocessed condition; 2) an eight-channel vocoding condition that simulated a traditional cochlear implant and contained temporal envelope cues; 3) a simulation of electro-acoustic stimulation (sEAS) that included a low-pass acoustic component and high-pass vocoded portion, and which provided fine structure and envelope cues; 4) a condition that included only the low-pass acoustic portion of the sEAS and 5) a condition that included only the high-frequency vocoded portion of the sEAS stimulus. Results Melody recognition was excellent for both younger and older listeners in the conditions containing the unprocessed stimuli, the full sEAS stimuli, and the low-pass sEAS stimuli. Melody recognition was significantly worse in the cochlear-implant simulation condition, especially for the older group of listeners. Performance on the timbre task was highest for the unprocessed condition, and progressively decreased for the sEAS and cochlear-implant simulation conditions. Compared to younger listeners, older listeners had significantly poorer timbre recognition for all processing conditions. For melody recognition, the unprocessed low-frequency portion of the sEAS stimulus was the primary factor determining improved performance in the sEAS condition compared to the cochlear-implant simulation. For timbre recognition, both the unprocessed low-frequency and high-frequency vocoded portions of the sEAS stimulus contributed to sEAS improvement in the younger group. In contrast, most listeners in the older group were not able to take advantage of the high-frequency vocoded portion of the sEAS stimulus for timbre recognition. Conclusions The results of this simulation study support the idea that older listeners will have diminished timbre and melody perception in traditional cochlear-implant listening due to degraded envelope processing. The findings also suggest that music perception by older listeners with cochlear implants will be improved with the addition of low-frequency residual hearing. However, these improvements might not be comparable for all dimensions of music perception. That is, more improvement ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Age on Melody and Timbre Perception in Simulations of Electro-Acoustic and Cochlear-Implant Hearing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The acoustic signal gives additional spectral information, as well as temporal fine structure not available in the electric signal that is important for music and voice pitch perception. Low‐frequency vowel and consonant cues help a listener distinguish different talkers and segregate speech from noise . A number of studies demonstrated that, in complicated listening situations, having preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear in addition to the acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear significantly improved speech understanding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The benefits of using electrical stimulation with acoustic hearing (E1A) in the same, implanted, ear are well established and include improved speech understanding in quiet and in noise, overall natural sound and music quality, and better localization. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Advances in cochlear implant design have led to arrays, like that of the Nucleus V R Hybrid TM L24 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) cochlear implant, intended to stimulate the poorer high-frequency basal region of the cochlea while preserving the low-frequency apical region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%