Literature DB >> 21307775

Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.

Lina A J Reiss1, Mary W Lowder, Sue A Karsten, Christopher W Turner, Bruce J Gantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that pitch perceived through cochlear implants (CIs) changes with experience to minimize spectral mismatches between electric and acoustic hearing. This study aimed to test whether perceived spectral mismatches are similarly minimized between two electric inputs.
DESIGN: Pitch perception was studied in a subject with a 10-mm CI in one ear and a 24-mm CI in the other ear. Both processors were programmed to allocate information from the same frequency range of 188-7938 Hz, despite the large differences in putative insertion depth and stimulated cochlear locations between the CIs.
RESULTS: After 2 and 3 years of experience, pitch-matched electrode pairs between CIs were aligned closer to the processor-provided frequencies than to cochlear position.
CONCLUSIONS: Pitch perception may have adapted to reduce perceived spectral discrepancies between bilateral CI inputs, despite 2-3 octave differences in tonotopic mapping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21307775      PMCID: PMC3120897          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820c81b0

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


  20 in total

1.  Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm.

Authors:  L M Collins; C S Throckmorton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later.

Authors:  D D Greenwood
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Long-term, partially-reversible reorganization of frequency tuning in mature cat primary auditory cortex can be induced by passive exposure to moderate-level sounds.

Authors:  Martin Pienkowski; Jos J Eggermont
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  B Townshend; N Cotter; D Van Compernolle; R L White
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The pitch of electrically presented sinusoids.

Authors:  M F Dorman; M Smith; L Smith; J L Parkin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Psychophysical studies for two multiple-channel cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Y C Tong; G M Clark; P J Blamey; P A Busby; R C Dowell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations.

Authors:  P J Blamey; G J Dooley; E S Parisi; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1996-09-15       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.

Authors:  D K Eddington; W H Dobelle; D E Brackmann; M G Mladejovsky; J L Parkin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1978 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.547

10.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  21 in total

1.  Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  L A J Reiss; C W Turner; S A Karsten; B J Gantz
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 3.590

2.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; Selena Liao; Jillian J Becker; Carrie E Lakin; Frank M Warren; Sean O McMenomey
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Effects of lower frequency-to-electrode allocations on speech and pitch perception with the hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Ann E Perreau; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Abnormal binaural spectral integration in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; David R Wozny
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-24

6.  Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jessica L Eggleston; Emily P Walker; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-24

7.  Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Hannah E Staisloff; Abbigail Kirchner; Daniel H Lee; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-05

8.  Self-Selection of Frequency Tables with Bilateral Mismatches in an Acoustic Simulation of a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Matthew B Fitzgerald; Ksenia Prosolovich; Chin-Tuan Tan; E Katelyn Glassman; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners' Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences.

Authors:  Ashley Zaleski-King; Matthew J Goupell; Dragana Barac-Cikoja; Matthew Bakke
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Initial Operative Experience and Short-term Hearing Preservation Results With a Mid-scala Cochlear Implant Electrode Array.

Authors:  Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Sean O McMenomey; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.