Impaired perception of temporal fine structure and musical timbre in cochlear implant users

Hearing Research

Volumn 280, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 192-200

  Heng, Joseph ^a   Cantarero, Gabriela ^a   Elhilali, Mounya ^b   Limb, Charles J ^a,c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CHIMERA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; MUSIC; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; PITCH PERCEPTION; PSYCHOACOUSTICS;

EID: 80053051584     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.05.017     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ansi P.T. Psychoacoustical Terminology 1973, American National Standards Institute, New York.
2. Caclin A., Brattico E., Tervaniemi M., Naatanen R., Morlet D., Giard M.H., McAdams S. Separate neural processing of timbre dimensions in auditory sensory memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2006, 18:1959-1972.
3. Dugundji J. Envelopes and pre-envelopes of real waveforms. Information Theory. IRE Trans. 1958, 4:53-57.
4. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:1150-1163.
5. Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Murray K.T., Tyler R.S. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2000, 11:390-406.
6. Gfeller K., Witt S., Woodworth G., Mehr M.A., Knutson J. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2002, 111:349.
7. Gfeller K., Turner C., Mehr M., Woodworth G., Fearn R., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Stordahl J. Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2002, 3:29-53.
8. Ghitza O. On the upper cutoff frequency of the auditory critical-band envelope detectors in the context of speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:1628-1640.
9. Gilbert G., Lorenzi C. The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:2438.
10. Grey J.M. Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1977, 61:1270-1277.
11. Gunawan D., Sen D. Spectral envelope sensitivity of musical instrument sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:500-506.
12. Hong R.S., Rubinstein J.T. High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:3327-3342.
13. Hong R.S., Rubinstein J.T. Conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: effects on loudness growth. Otol. Neurotol. 2006, 27:50.
14. Hong R.S., Rubinstein J.T., Wehner D., Horn D. Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants. Otol. Neurotol. 2003, 24:590.
15. Huss M., Moore B.C.J. Dead regions and pitch perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 117:3841-3852.
16. Jolly C.N., Spelman F.A., Clopton B.M. Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1996, 43:857-865.
17. Joris P.X., Yin T.C. Responses to the amplitude-modulated tones in the auditory nerve of the cat. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 91:215-232.
18. Kong Y.Y., Cruz R., Jones J.A., Zeng F.G. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 2004, 25:173.
19. Krumhansl C.L. Why is Musical Timbre so Hard to Understand. Structure and Perception Electroacoustic Sound Music 1989, 43-53.
20. Laneau J., Wouters J., Moonen M. Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants. Audiol. Neurotol. 2006, 11:38-52.
21. Licklider J.C.R., Pollack I. Effects of differentiation, integration, and infinite peak clipping upon the intelligibility of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1948, 20:42-51.
22. Litvak L.M., Delgutte B., Eddington D.K. Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:2079-2098.
23. Litvak L.M., Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Eddington D.K. Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:2066-2078.
24. Liu S., Zeng F.G. Temporal properties in clear speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 120:424-432.
25. Logan B.F. Information in the zero crossings of bandpass signals. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1977, 56:487-510.
26. Marozeau J., de Cheveigné A., McAdams S., Winsberg S. The dependency of timbre on fundamental frequency. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:2946-2957.
27. McAdams S., Winsberg S., Donnadieu S., Soete G., Krimphoff J. Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes. Psychol. Res. 1995, 58:177-192.
28. McDermott H.J. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 2004, 8:49.
29. McDermott, H.J., Looi, V., 2004. Perception of complex signals, including musical sounds, with cochlear implants. In: Proceedings of the VIII International Cochlear Implant Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
30. Moore B.C.J., Carlyon R.P. Perception of Pitch by People with Cochlear Hearing Loss and by Cochlear Implant Users 2005, vol. 24. Springer, New York, 234.
31. Nimmons G.L., Kang R.S., Drennan W.R., Longnion J., Ruffin C., Worman T., Yueh B., Rubinstein J.T. Clinical assessment of music perception in cochlear implant listeners. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:149.
32. Nogueira W. A psychoacoustic " NofM" -type speech coding strategy for cochlear implants. EURASIP J. Appl. Sign. Proc. 2005, 2005:3044-3059.
33. Oxenham A.J., Bernstein J.G.W., Penagos H. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101:1421-1425.
34. Papoulis A. Random modulation: a review. IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech Signal. Processing 1983, 31:96-105.
35. Plomp R. The Role of Modulation in Hearing. Hearing-Physiological Bases and Psychophysics 1983, Springer, Berlin, 270-276.
36. Reiss L.A.J., Turner C.W., Erenberg S.R., Gantz B.J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007, 8:241-257.
37. Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London B. 1992, 336:367-373.
38. Ruffin C., Liu G., Drennan W., Won J.H., Longnion J., Rubinstein J. Evidence for Temporal Fine Structure Encoding by Cochlear Implant Subjects Using Envelope-Modulated Speech Processing Strategies. Poster Presented at the Association for Research in Otolaryngology Mid-Winter Meeting 2007, 2007.
39. Samson S., Zatorre R.J., Ramsay J.O. Multidimensional scaling of synthetic musical timbre: perception of spectral and temporal characteristics. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 1997, 51:307-315.
40. Schimmel, S., Atlas, L., 2005. Coherent envelope detection for modulation filtering of speech, acoustics, speech, and signal processing, 2005. Proceedings. (ICASSP '05). IEEE International Conference on, vol. 1. pp. 221-224.
41. Shamma S., Klein D. The case of the missing pitch templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:2631-2644.
42. Sheft S., Ardoint M., Lorenzi C. Speech identification based on temporal fine structure cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124:562-575.
43. Shepherd R.K., Javel E. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear. Res. 1999, 130:171-188.
44. Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Oxenham A.J. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002, 416:87-90.
45. Voelcker H.B. Toward a unified theory of modulation. Part I: phase-envelope relationships. Proc. IEEE 1966, 54:340-353.
46. Von Helmholtz H., Ellis A.J. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music Longmans 1895, Green, and Co.
47. Wilson B.S. Engineering Design of Cochlear Implants. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 2004, vol. 20. 14-52.
48. Xu L., Pfingst B.E. Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:3024-3027.
49. Zeng F.G., Nie K., Liu S., Stickney G., Del Rio E., Kong Y.Y., Chen H. On the dichotomy in auditory perception between temporal envelope and fine structure cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:1351-1354.