Literature DB >> 20136187

Modulation rate discrimination using half-wave rectified and sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli in cochlear-implant users.

Heather A Kreft1, Andrew J Oxenham, David A Nelson.   

Abstract

Detection and modulation rate discrimination were measured in cochlear-implant users for pulse-trains that were either sinusoidally amplitude modulated or were modulated with half-wave rectified sinusoids, which in acoustic hearing have been used to simulate the response to low-frequency temporal fine structure. In contrast to comparable results from acoustic hearing, modulation rate discrimination was not statistically different for the two stimulus types. The results suggest that, in contrast to binaural perception, pitch perception in cochlear-implant users does not benefit from using stimuli designed to more closely simulate the cochlear response to low-frequency pure tones.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20136187      PMCID: PMC2830260          DOI: 10.1121/1.3282947

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


  26 in total

1.  The case of the missing pitch templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory system.

Authors:  S Shamma; D Klein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall; Rebecca J Farrell; Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin; Arlene Earley Carney; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Joshua G W Bernstein; Hector Penagos
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.

Authors:  Ginger S Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng; Ruth Litovsky; Peter Assmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Pulse rate discrimination with deeply inserted electrode arrays.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Enhancing sensitivity to interaural delays at high frequencies by using "transposed stimuli".

Authors:  Leslie R Bernstein; Constantine Trahiotis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-02
View more
  10 in total

1.  Temporal Envelope Coding by Inferior Colliculus Neurons with Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Kenneth E Hancock; Yoojin Chung; Martin F McKinney; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-17

2.  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

3.  Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Sandy Oba; Deniz Başkent; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Effects of rate and age in processing interaural time and level differences in normal-hearing and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Kyle Easter; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Temporal-pitch sensitivity in electric hearing with amplitude modulation and inserted pulses with short inter-pulse intervals.

Authors:  Martin J Lindenbeck; Bernhard Laback; Piotr Majdak; Sridhar Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The effect of enhancing temporal periodicity cues on Cantonese tone recognition by cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Tan Lee; Shing Yu; Meng Yuan; Terence Ka Cheong Wong; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Place-Pitch Interval Perception With a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Ann E Todd; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Andres Camarena; Susan R S Bissmeyer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.672

9.  Envelope Interactions in Multi-Channel Amplitude Modulation Frequency Discrimination by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Sandra I Oba; Deniz Başkent; Monita Chatterjee; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Encoding a Melody Using Only Temporal Information for Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.