Literature DB >> 15497033

Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.

Hugh J McDermott1.   

Abstract

The acceptance of cochlear implantation as an effective and safe treatment for deafness has increased steadily over the past quarter century. The earliest devices were the first implanted prostheses found to be successful in compensating partially for lost sensory function by direct electrical stimulation of nerves. Initially, the main intention was to provide limited auditory sensations to people with profound or total sensorineural hearing impairment in both ears. Although the first cochlear implants aimed to provide patients with little more than awareness of environmental sounds and some cues to assist visual speech-reading, the technology has advanced rapidly. Currently, most people with modern cochlear implant systems can understand speech using the device alone, at least in favorable listening conditions. In recent years, an increasing research effort has been directed towards implant users' perception of nonspeech sounds, especially music. This paper reviews that research, discusses the published experimental results in terms of both psychophysical observations and device function, and concludes with some practical suggestions about how perception of music might be enhanced for implant recipients in the future. The most significant findings of past research are: (1) On average, implant users perceive rhythm about as well as listeners with normal hearing; (2) Even with technically sophisticated multiple-channel sound processors, recognition of melodies, especially without rhythmic or verbal cues, is poor, with performance at little better than chance levels for many implant users; (3) Perception of timbre, which is usually evaluated by experimental procedures that require subjects to identify musical instrument sounds, is generally unsatisfactory; (4) Implant users tend to rate the quality of musical sounds as less pleasant than listeners with normal hearing; (5) Auditory training programs that have been devised specifically to provide implant users with structured musical listening experience may improve the subjective acceptability of music that is heard through a prosthesis; (6) Pitch perception might be improved by designing innovative sound processors that use both temporal and spatial patterns of electric stimulation more effectively and precisely to overcome the inherent limitations of signal coding in existing implant systems; (7) For the growing population of implant recipients who have usable acoustic hearing, at least for low-frequency sounds, perception of music is likely to be much better with combined acoustic and electric stimulation than is typical for deaf people who rely solely on the hearing provided by their prostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15497033      PMCID: PMC4111359          DOI: 10.1177/108471380400800203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  61 in total

1.  Ability of nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music.

Authors:  S Fujita; J Ito
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.547

2.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception.

Authors:  Zachary M Smith; Bertrand Delgutte; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Application of loudness models to sound processing for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott; Colette M McKay; Louise M Richardson; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  [Auditory prosthesis by means of a distant electrical stimulation of the sensory nerve with the use of an indwelt coiling].

Authors:  A DJOURNO; C EYRIES
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  1957-08-31       Impact factor: 1.228

5.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users.

Authors:  K Gfeller; C R Lansing
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-08

7.  Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  R J van Hoesel; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Perception of pitch and timbre by musically trained and untrained listeners.

Authors:  M A Pitt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  D K Eddington
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor.

Authors:  P C Loizou; M F Dorman; V Powell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  149 in total

Review 1.  The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Melody identification for cochlear implant users and normal hearers using expanded pitch contours.

Authors:  Frank Michael Digeser; Anne Hast; Thomas Wesarg; Horst Hessel; Ulrich Hoppe
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Influence of pitch, timbre and timing cues on melodic contour identification with a competing masker (L).

Authors:  Meimei Zhu; Bing Chen; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Encoding pitch contours using current steering.

Authors:  Xin Luo; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The biophysical origin of traveling-wave dispersion in the cochlea.

Authors:  Sripriya Ramamoorthy; Ding-Jun Zha; Alfred L Nuttall
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 4.033

7.  Improving melody recognition in cochlear implant recipients through individualized frequency map fitting.

Authors:  Walter Di Nardo; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Francesca Cianfrone; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Preservation of rhythmic clocking in cochlear implant users: a study of isochronous versus anisochronous beat detection.

Authors:  Irene Kim; Eunice Yang; Patrick J Donnelly; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-09

9.  Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

10.  Simulating the effects of spread of electric excitation on musical tuning and melody identification with a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Leonid M Litvak; Michael F Dorman; Ashley R Bohanan; Lakshmi N Mishra
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.