Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: Frequency-place functions and rate pitch

Hearing Research

Volumn 309, Issue , 2014, Pages 26-35

  Schatzer, Reinhold ^a   Vermeire, Katrien ^a,c   Visser, Daniel ^a,d   Krenmayr, Andreas ^a,e   Kals, Mathias ^a,e   Voormolen, Maurits ^b   Van de Heyning, Paul ^b   Zierhofer, Clemens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b ANTWERP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^c Thomas More University College   (Belgium)

^d LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e MED EL GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORTI ORGAN; ELECTRIC ACOUSTIC PITCH; ELECTRODE IMPLANT; HUMAN; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SINGLE SIDED DEAF COCHLEAR IMPLANT; TINNITUS;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS; PITCH PERCEPTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84888412546     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baumann U., Nobbe A. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function. Hear. Res. 2006, 213:34-42.
2. Baumann U., Rader T., Helbig S., Bahmer A. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation. Ear. Hear. 2011, 32:656-662.
3. Blamey P.J., Dooley G.J., Parisi E.S., Clark G.M. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations. Hear. Res. 1996, 99:139-150.
4. Boëx C., Baud L., Cosendai G., Sigrist A., Kós M.-I. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2006, 7:110-124.
5. Carlyon R.P., Lynch C., Deeks J.M. Effect of stimulus level and place of stimulation on temporal pitch perception by cochlear implant users. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 127:2997-3008.
6. Carlyon R.P., Macherey O., Frijns J.H., Axon P.R., Kalkman R.K., Boyle P., Baguley D.M., Briggs J., Deeks J.M., Briaire J.J., Barreau X., Dauman R. Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2010, 11:625-640.
7. Dorman M.F., Smith M., Smith L., Parkin J.L. The pitch of electrically presented sinusoids. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95:1677-1679.
8. Dorman M.F., Spahr T., Gifford R., Loiselle L., McKarns S., Holden T., Skinner M., Finley C. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007, 8:234-240.
9. Fearn R., Wolfe J. Relative importance of rate and place: experiments using pitch scaling techniques with cochlear implants recipients. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 2000, 185:51-53.
10. Frijns J.H., Kalkman R.K., Briaire J.J. The ideal extent of apical stimulation: where to stop?. Symposium on the Apex of the Cochlea: from Neuroanatomy to Electrical Stimulation, Paris, France 2011.
11. Goldstein J.L. An optimum processor theory for the central formation of the pitch of complex tones. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1973, 54:1496-1516.
12. Greenwood D.D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 87:2592-2605.
13. Greenwood D.D. Critical bandwidth and the frequency coordinates of the basilar membrane. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1961, 33:1344-1356.
14. Kong Y.Y., Carlyon R.P. Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 127:3114-3123.
15. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971, 49:467-477.
16. Licklider J.C.R. Three auditory theories. Psychology: a Study of a Science 1959, vol. 1:41-144. McGraw-Hill, New York.
17. Loeb G.E. Are cochlear implant patients suffering from perceptual dissonance?. Ear. Hear. 2005, 26:435-450.
18. McDermott H., Sucher C., Simpson A. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons. Audiol. Neurootol. 2009, 14(Suppl.1):2-7.
19. Meddis R., O'Mard L. Aunitary model of pitch perception. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997, 102:1811-1820.
20. Müller J., Brill S., Hagen R., Moeltner A., Brockmeier S.J., Stark T., Helbig S., Maurer J., Zahnert T., Zierhofer C., Nopp P., Anderson I. Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 2012, 74:185-198.
21. Oxenham A.J., Bernstein J.G., Penagos H. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004, 101:1421-1425.
22. Plomp R., Steeneken H.J.M. Pitch versus timbre. Proc. 7th Internat. Congr. Acoustics 1971, vol. 3:377-380. Budapest.
23. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:446-454.
24. Reiss L.A., Gantz B.J., Turner C.W. Cochlear implant speech processor frequency allocations may influence pitch perception. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:160-167.
25. Reiss L.A., 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.
26. Riss D., Arnoldner C., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A., Hamzavi J.S. Anew fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:784-788.
27. Schatzer R., Krenmayr A., Au D.K., Kals M., Zierhofer C. Temporal fine structure in cochlear implants: preliminary speech perception results in Cantonese-speaking implant users. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010, 130:1031-1039.
28. Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Oxenham A.J. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002, 416:87-90.
29. Stakhovskaya O., Sridhar D., Bonham B.H., Leake P.A. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007, 8:220-233.
30. Terhardt E. Calculating virtual pitch. Hear. Res. 1979, 1:155-182.
31. Tong Y.C., Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., Clark G.M. Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983, 74:73-80.
32. Townshend B., Cotter N., Van Compernolle D., White R.L. Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 82:106-115.
33. Van de Heyning P., Vermeire K., Diebl M., Nopp P., Anderson I., De Ridder D. Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2008, 117:645-652.
34. Vermeire K., Nobbe A., Schleich P., Nopp P., Voormolen M.H., Van de Heyning P.H. Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Hear. Res. 2008, 245:98-106.
35. von Helmholtz H. Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, Germany 1863.
36. Wever E.G. Theory of Hearing 1940, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
37. Wever E.G., Bray C.W. Present possibilities for auditory theory. Psychol. Rev. 1930, 37:365-380.
38. Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K., Rabinowitz W.M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991, 352:236-238.
39. Wundt W. Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie 1880, W. Engelmann, Leipzig. second ed.
40. Xu J., Xu S.A., Cohen L.T., Clark G.M. Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am. J. Otol 2000, 21:49-56.
41. 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.