Literature DB >> 20329847

The upper limit of temporal pitch for cochlear-implant listeners: stimulus duration, conditioner pulses, and the number of electrodes stimulated.

Robert P Carlyon1, John M Deeks, Colette M McKay.   

Abstract

Three experiments studied discrimination of changes in the rate of electrical pulse trains by cochlear-implant (CI) users and investigated the effect of manipulations that would be expected to substantially affect the pattern of auditory nerve (AN) activity. Experiment 1 used single-electrode stimulation and tested discrimination at baseline rates between 100 and 500 pps. Performance was generally similar for stimulus durations of 200 and 800 ms, and, for the longer duration, for stimuli that were gated on abruptly or with 300-ms ramps. Experiment 2 used a similar procedure and found that no substantial benefit was obtained by the addition of background 5000-pps "conditioning" pulses. Experiment 3 used a pitch-ranking procedure and found that the range of rates over which pitch increased with increasing rate was not greater for multiple-electrode than for single-electrode stimulation. The results indicate that the limitation on pulse-rate discrimination by CI users, at high baseline rates, is not specific to a particular temporal pattern of the AN response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20329847     DOI: 10.1121/1.3291981

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


  31 in total

1.  Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

3.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Kaibao Nie; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Tyler H Churchill; Alan Kan; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effect of Pulse Rate on Loudness Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-03-12

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.