Literature DB >> 17347777

Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Lina A J Reiss1, Christopher W Turner, Sheryl R Erenberg, Bruce J Gantz.   

Abstract

In the normal auditory system, the perceived pitch of a tone is closely linked to the cochlear place of vibration. It has generally been assumed that high-rate electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant electrode also evokes a pitch sensation corresponding to the electrode's cochlear place ("place" code) and stimulation rate ("temporal" code). However, other factors may affect electric pitch sensation, such as a substantial loss of nearby nerve fibers or even higher-level perceptual changes due to experience. The goals of this study were to measure electric pitch sensations in hybrid (short-electrode) cochlear implant patients and to examine which factors might contribute to the perceived pitch. To look at effects of experience, electric pitch sensations were compared with acoustic tone references presented to the non-implanted ear at various stages of implant use, ranging from hookup to 5 years. Here, we show that electric pitch perception often shifts in frequency, sometimes by as much as two octaves, during the first few years of implant use. Additional pitch measurements in more recently implanted patients at shorter time intervals up to 1 year of implant use suggest two likely contributions to these observed pitch shifts: intersession variability (up to one octave) and slow, systematic changes over time. We also found that the early pitch sensations for a constant electrode location can vary greatly across subjects and that these variations are strongly correlated with speech reception performance. Specifically, patients with an early low-pitch sensation tend to perform poorly with the implant compared to those with an early high-pitch sensation, which may be linked to less nerve survival in the basal end of the cochlea in the low-pitch patients. In contrast, late pitch sensations show no correlation with speech perception. These results together suggest that early pitch sensations may more closely reflect peripheral innervation patterns, while later pitch sensations may reflect higher-level, experience-dependent changes. These pitch shifts over time not only raise questions for strict place-based theories of pitch perception, but also imply that experience may have a greater influence on cochlear implant perception than previously thought.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17347777      PMCID: PMC2538353          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0077-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  37 in total

1.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  S Rosen; A Faulkner; L Wilkinson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Cortical plasticity: from synapses to maps.

Authors:  D V Buonomano; M M Merzenich
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 12.449

5.  Pure-tone pitch anomalies. II. Pitch-intensity effects and diplacusis in impaired ears.

Authors:  E M Burns; C Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants.

Authors:  B J Gantz; G G Woodworth; J F Knutson; P J Abbas; R S Tyler
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.547

7.  Psychophysical studies for two multiple-channel cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Y C Tong; G M Clark; P J Blamey; P A Busby; R C Dowell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users.

Authors:  M L Hughes; K R Vander Werff; C J Brown; P J Abbas; D M Kelsay; H F Teagle; M W Lowder
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.

Authors:  D K Eddington; W H Dobelle; D E Brackmann; M G Mladejovsky; J L Parkin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1978 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.547

View more
  76 in total

Review 1.  Cochlear implants and brain stem implants.

Authors:  Richard T Ramsden
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.291

2.  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

3.  Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations.

Authors:  Frank Eisner; Carolyn McGettigan; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen; Sophie K Scott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  A new software tool to optimize frequency table selection for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Daniel Jethanamest; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Jacob Oleson; Marlan Hansen; Aaron Parkinson; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 6.  Combined acoustic and electric hearing: preserving residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Lina A J Reiss; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  L A J Reiss; C W Turner; S A Karsten; B J Gantz
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 3.590

8.  Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Stefano Cosentino; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-08

9.  Initial Operative Experience and Short-term Hearing Preservation Results With a Mid-scala Cochlear Implant Electrode Array.

Authors:  Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Sean O McMenomey; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  The Hybrid cochlear implant: a review.

Authors:  Erika A Woodson; Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Kate Gfeller; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.