Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues

Hearing Research

Volumn 283, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 59-69

  Fraser, Matthew ^a   McKay, Colette M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD SHIFT; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOUDNESS; MALE; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOUND DETECTION; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84856595250     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Busby P.A., Tong Y.C., Clark G.M. The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993, 94:124-131.
2. Cazals Y., Pelizzone M., Saudan O., Boex C. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 96:2048-2054.
3. Chatterjee M., Robert M.E. Noise enhances modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant listeners: stochastic resonance in a prosthetic sensory system?. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2001, 2:159-171.
4. Chatterjee M., Oba S.I. Noise improves modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners at moderate carrier levels. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:993-1002.
5. Chatterjee M., Oberzut C. Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011, 130:1567-1580.
6. Dai H., Micheyl C. On the choice of adequate randomization ranges for limiting the use of unwanted cues in same-different, dual-pair, and oddity tasks. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010, 72:538-547.
7. Dau T., Kollmeier B., Kohlrausch A. Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997, 102:2892-2905.
8. Donaldson G.S., Viemeister N.F. Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation in electric hearing. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 108:760-763.
9. Fu Q.J. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 2002, 13:1635-1639.
10. Galvin J.J., Fu Q.J. Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6:269-279.
11. Galvin J.J., Fu Q.J. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear. Res. 2009, 250:46-54.
12. Kohlrausch A., Fassel R., Dau T. The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 108:723-734.
13. McKay C.M., Henshall K.R. Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2010, 11:101-111.
14. McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., Clark G.M. Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 96:2664-2673.
15. McKay C.M., Henshall K.R., Farrell R.J., McDermott H.J. Apractical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:2054-2063.
16. Middlebrooks J.C. Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex. J.Neurophysiol. 2008, 100:92-107.
17. Nelson D.A., Schmitz J.L., Donaldson G.S., Viemeister N.F., Javel E. Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996, 100:2393-2414.
18. Pfingst B.E., Xu L., Thompson C.S. Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121:2236-2246.
19. Pfingst B.E., Burkholder-Juhasz R.A., Xu L., Thompson C.S. Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:1054-1062.
20. Rubinstein J.T., Hong R. Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2003, 191:14-19.
21. Shannon R.V. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 91:2156-2164.
22. Viemeister N.F. Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1979, 66:1364-1380.
23. Zhang C., Zeng F.G. Loudness of dynamic stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997, 102:2925-2934.