Literature DB >> 19955723

Music perception in electric acoustic stimulation users as assessed by the Mu.S.I.C. test.

S J Brockmeier, M Peterreins, A Lorens, K Vermeire, S Helbig, I Anderson, H Skarzynski, P Van de Heyning, W Gstoettner, J Kiefer.   

Abstract

AIMS: This study compared the music perception abilities of 13 electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) users with two control groups: unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners.
METHODS: Groups were matched according to age and musical experience before hearing loss (HL) and tested using the Musical Sounds in Cochlear Implants (Mu.S.I.C.) test.
RESULTS: No difference was found on rhythm perception, chord discrimination, dissonance rating, and emotion rating subtest performance between groups. Mean frequency discrimination scores were significantly better in EAS participants than in CI participants and not significantly worse than in NH participants. However, the EAS and CI groups scored similarly (significantly worse than NH participants) on both instrument detection and identification. Results for EAS participants were not significantly worse when the hearing aid component was removed. Frequency of listening to music before HL was negatively correlated with EAS participants' frequency discrimination scores, though singing and playing an instrument appeared to have no effect. EAS participants who indicated many reasons for listening to music and who listen to many genres after implantation scored higher on instrument detection and instrument identification. Better results on these two subtests were correlated with EAS participants' better postoperative auditory thresholds at 250 and 500 Hz.
CONCLUSIONS: Though EAS participants performed better on music perception testing (though not timbre-based tasks) than CI participants, their scores did not reach the level of NH participants. This indicates that acoustic hearing in the low frequencies is helpful for music perception, though not the only important factor. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19955723     DOI: 10.1159/000262598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0065-3071


  16 in total

1.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 2.  A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes, and clinical fitting practices.

Authors:  Paola V Incerti; Teresa Y C Ching; Robert Cowan
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-03

3.  Effects of age on melody and timbre perception in simulations of electro-acoustic and cochlear-implant hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Naomi B H Croghan; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Reliability measure of a clinical test: Appreciation of Music in Cochlear Implantees (AMICI).

Authors:  Min-Yu Cheng; Jaclyn B Spitzer; Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Dean Mancuso
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Access and Polarization Electrode Impedance Changes in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Delayed Loss of Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Hyejin Yang; Jeong-Seo Kim; Helin Hernandez; Jacob J Oleson; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-10-22

6.  Hearing Loss After Activation of Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implants Might Be Related to Afferent Cochlear Innervation Injury.

Authors:  Jonathan C Kopelovich; Lina A J Reiss; Christine P Etler; Linjing Xu; J Tyler Bertroche; Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Bimodal Benefit for Music Perception: Effect of Acoustic Bandwidth.

Authors:  Kristen L D'Onofrio; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 8.  Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.

Authors:  Jason H Barnes; Linda X Yin; Aniket A Saoji; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-06-04

Review 9.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Priscila Carvalho Miranda; André Luiz Lopes Sampaio; Rafaela Aquino Fernandes Lopes; Alessandra Ramos Venosa; Carlos Augusto Costa Pires de Oliveira
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-03

10.  Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Büchner; Angelika Illg; Omid Majdani; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.