Literature DB >> 16777362

Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.

Hugh J McDermott1, Catherine M Sucher.   

Abstract

Five users of cochlear implants who had residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear postoperatively participated in a study comparing the percepts elicited by acoustic and electric stimuli. The stimuli comprised pulse trains delivered to single electrodes and pure tones presented ipsilaterally. In the experiments, 12 equally loud stimuli with differing frequencies, electrode positions, and pulse rates were generated. Subjects listened to all of the possible pairs of stimuli in each set, and provided a relative dissimilarity rating for the members of each stimulus pair. The data were analyzed using non-metric multi-dimensional scaling techniques. Stimulus spaces were plotted in two dimensions to represent the results for each subject with each stimulus set. The results suggested that one dimension was associated with a pitch-like percept, related to the acoustic tone frequency and the active electrode position. The second dimension separated the acoustic stimuli from the electric stimuli. Generally, the electric pulse rate seemed to have a relatively small perceptual effect in this experimental context. Overall, the results show that acoustic pure tones are perceived as very different from electric pulse trains delivered to single electrode positions with constant rate, even when both the acoustic and the electric stimuli are presented to the same ear.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16777362     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.05.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  7 in total

1.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Multidimensional scaling between acoustic and electric stimuli in cochlear implant users with contralateral hearing.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; David M Landsberger; Peter Schleich; Paul H Van de Heyning
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Two ears and two (or more?) devices: a pediatric case study of bilateral profound hearing loss.

Authors:  Rosalie M Uchanski; Lisa S Davidson; Sharon Quadrizius; Ruth Reeder; Jamie Cadieux; Jerrica Kettel; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06

4.  Sentence Recognition in Quiet and Noise in School-Going Indian Children Using Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Aparna Nitin Nandurkar; Karthik Venugopal; Richa Arya
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-11-13

5.  Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Johan H M Frijns; Patrick R Axon; Randy K Kalkman; Patrick Boyle; David M Baguley; John Briggs; John M Deeks; Jeroen J Briaire; Xavier Barreau; René Dauman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-06-05

6.  The Benefits of Bimodal Aiding on Extended Dimensions of Speech Perception: Intelligibility, Listening Effort, and Sound Quality.

Authors:  Elke M J Devocht; A Miranda L Janssen; Josef Chalupper; Robert J Stokroos; Erwin L J George
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Vowel production of Mandarin-speaking hearing aid users with different types of hearing loss.

Authors:  Yu-Chen Hung; Ya-Jung Lee; Li-Chiun Tsai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.