Literature DB >> 16230894

Are cochlear implant patients suffering from perceptual dissonance?

Gerald E Loeb1.   

Abstract

Cochlear implants provide functional hearing to the majority of recipients and have gained widespread acceptance clinically, but the range of performance remains great and largely unexplained. Designs for implanted electrodes and electronics have converged, whereas novel speech processing strategies have proliferated. For each patient, the fitting audiologist must sort empirically through options that produce large but idiosyncratic differences in both objective performance and subjective preference. This review and analysis suggests that the place-pitch and rate-pitch theories on which cochlear implants have been designed are incomplete. The missing component may be related to the phase-locking of auditory nerve activity to both acoustic and electrical stimulation. This component is likely to be highly distorted by electrical stimulation but its importance as one of several different pitch encoding mechanisms may vary widely among patients. Systematic means to control these putative phase effects using modern, high-speed, and high-density cochlear implants may make it possible to identify more efficiently the best strategy for a given patient and to minimize the perceptual confusion that arises from conflicting cues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16230894     DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000179688.87621.48

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Assessing the Role of Place and Timing Cues in Coding Frequency and Amplitude Modulation as a Function of Age.

Authors:  Kelly L Whiteford; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-20

3.  Superoptimal Perceptual Integration Suggests a Place-Based Representation of Pitch at High Frequencies.

Authors:  Bonnie K Lau; Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Computational Modeling of Synchrony in the Auditory Nerve in Response to Acoustic and Electric Stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.387

Review 5.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05

6.  Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Behavioral and physiological correlates of temporal pitch perception in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Suresh Mahendran; John M Deeks; Christopher J Long; Patrick Axon; David Baguley; Stefan Bleeck; Ian M Winter
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Concurrent sound segregation in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-10

Review 9.  Across-channel timing differences as a potential code for the frequency of pure tones.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-08

10.  Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Andres Camarena; Susan R S Bissmeyer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.672

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.