Literature DB >> 19275322

Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants.

Ying-Yee Kong1, John M Deeks, Patrick R Axon, Robert P Carlyon.   

Abstract

A common finding in the cochlear implant literature is that the upper limit of rate discrimination on a single channel is about 300 pps. The present study investigated rate discrimination using a procedure in which, in each block of two-interval trials, the standard could have one of the five baseline rates (100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 pps) and the signal rate was a given percentage higher than the standard. Eight Med-El C40+ subjects took part. The pattern of results was different than those reported previously: six Med-El subjects performed better at medium rates (200-300 pps) compared to both lower (100 pps) and higher (400-500 pps) rates. A similar pattern of results was obtained both with the method of constant stimuli and for 5000-pps pulse trains amplitude modulated at rates between 100 and 500 Hz. Compared to an unmatched group of eight Nucleus CI24 listeners tested using a similar paradigm and stimuli, Med-El subjects performed significantly better at 300 pps and higher but slightly worse at 100 pps. These results are discussed in relation to evidence on the limits of temporal pitch at low and high rates in normal-hearing listeners.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19275322     DOI: 10.1121/1.3068457

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  40 in total

1.  Neural ITD Sensitivity and Temporal Coding with Cochlear Implants in an Animal Model of Early-Onset Deafness.

Authors:  Yoojin Chung; Brian D Buechel; Woongsang Sunwoo; Joseph D Wagner; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-08

2.  Fundamental-frequency discrimination based on temporal-envelope cues: Effects of bandwidth and interference.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Vocoder Simulations Explain Complex Pitch Perception Limitations Experienced by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-21

4.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effect of Dual-Carrier Processing on the Intelligibility of Concurrent Vocoded Sentences.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Brittney L Carter; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; David A Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30

7.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

8.  Abnormal binaural spectral integration in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; David R Wozny
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-24

9.  Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Juliana Mathews; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control.

Authors:  Abbigail Kirchner; Torrey M Loucks; Elizabeth Abbs; Kevin Shi; Jeff W Yu; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.