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