Literature DB >> 19474735

Development and validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception test.

Robert Kang1, Grace Liu Nimmons, Ward Drennan, Jeff Longnion, Chad Ruffin, Kaibao Nie, Jong Ho Won, Tina Worman, Bevan Yueh, Jay Rubinstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of cochlear implant outcomes centers around speech discrimination. Despite dramatic improvements in speech perception, music perception remains a challenge for most cochlear implant users. No standardized test exists to quantify music perception in a clinically practical manner. This study presents the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test as a reliable and valid music perception test for English-speaking, adult cochlear implant users.
DESIGN: Forty-two cochlear implant subjects were recruited from the University of Washington Medical Center cochlear implant program and referred by two implant manufacturers. Ten normal-hearing volunteers were drawn from the University of Washington Medical Center and associated campuses. A computer-driven, self-administered test was developed to examine three specific aspects of music perception: pitch direction discrimination, melody recognition, and timbre recognition. The pitch subtest used an adaptive procedure to determine just-noticeable differences for complex tone pitch direction discrimination within the range of 1 to 12 semitones. The melody and timbre subtests assessed recognition of 12 commonly known melodies played with complex tones in an isochronous manner and eight musical instruments playing an identical five-note sequence, respectively. Testing was repeated for cochlear implant subjects to evaluate test-retest reliability. Normal-hearing volunteers were also tested to demonstrate differences in performance in the two populations.
RESULTS: For cochlear implant subjects, pitch direction discrimination just-noticeable differences ranged from 1 to 8.0 semitones (Mean = 3.0, SD = 2.3). Melody and timbre recognition ranged from 0 to 94.4% correct (mean = 25.1, SD = 22.2) and 20.8 to 87.5% (mean = 45.3, SD = 16.2), respectively. Each subtest significantly correlated at least moderately with both Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word recognition scores and spondee recognition thresholds in steady state noise and two-talker babble. Intraclass coefficients demonstrating test-retest correlations for pitch, melody, and timbre were 0.85, 0.92, and 0.69, respectively. Normal-hearing volunteers had a mean pitch direction discrimination threshold of 1.0 semitone, the smallest interval tested, and mean melody and timbre recognition scores of 87.5 and 94.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The CAMP test discriminates a wide range of music perceptual ability in cochlear implant users. Moderate correlations were seen between music test results and both Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant word recognition scores and spondee recognition thresholds in background noise. Test-retest reliability was moderate to strong. The CAMP test provides a reliable and valid metric for a clinically practical, standardized evaluation of music perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19474735      PMCID: PMC3209485          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61bc0

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


  24 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal.

Authors:  Kate Gfeller; Shelley Witt; George Woodworth; Maureen A Mehr; John Knutson
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.547

3.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

4.  Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.

Authors:  Kate Gfeller; Christopher Turner; Jacob Oleson; Xuyang Zhang; Bruce Gantz; Rebecca Froman; Carol Olszewski
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

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.  Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults.

Authors:  K Gfeller; J F Knutson; G Woodworth; S Witt; B DeBus
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Perception of rhythmic and sequential pitch patterns by normally hearing adults and adult cochlear implant users.

Authors:  K Gfeller; G Woodworth; D A Robin; S Witt; J F Knutson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  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

10.  Clinical assessment of music perception in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Grace L Nimmons; Robert S Kang; Ward R Drennan; Jeff Longnion; Chad Ruffin; Tina Worman; Bevan Yueh; Jay T Rubenstien
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  51 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.  Psychoacoustic performance and music and speech perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Kyu Hwan Jung; Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Elyse Jameyson; Gary Miyasaki; Susan J Norton; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Hybrid Music Perception Outcomes: Implications for Melody and Timbre Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Aaron J Parkinson; Jay T Rubinstein; Ward R Drennan; Christa Dodson; Kaibao Nie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Benefits of music training in mandarin-speaking pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang; Jiunn-Liang Wu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Melodic interval perception by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Megan E Masterson; Ching-Chih Wu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A Randomized Controlled Crossover Study of the Impact of Online Music Training on Pitch and Timbre Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Nicole T Jiam; Mickael L Deroche; Patpong Jiradejvong; Charles J Limb
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-02-27

Review 7.  Toward the Optical Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Tobias Dombrowski; Vladan Rankovic; Tobias Moser
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.915

8.  Interaction Between Pitch and Timbre Perception in Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Samara Soslowsky; Kathryn R Pulling
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-10-30

9.  Reduction of the Harmonic Series Influences Musical Enjoyment With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  John S Nemer; Gavriel D Kohlberg; Dean M Mancuso; Brianna M Griffin; Michael V Certo; Stephanie Y Chen; Michael B Chun; Jaclyn B Spitzer; Anil K Lalwani
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Melodic pitch perception and lexical tone perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Duoduo Tao; Rui Deng; Ye Jiang; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Bing Chen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.