Literature DB >> 23172009

Musical sound quality impairments in cochlear implant (CI) users as a function of limited high-frequency perception.

Alexis T Roy1, Patpong Jiradejvong, Courtney Carver, Charles J Limb.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to (a) apply the musical sound quality assessment method, Cochlear Implant-MUltiple Stimulus with Hidden Reference and Anchor (CI-MUSHRA), to quantify musical sound quality deficits in CI (cochlear implant) users with respect to high-frequency loss, and (b) assess possible correlations between CI-MUSHRA performance and self-reported musical sound quality, as assessed by more traditional rating scales. Five versions of real-world musical stimuli were created: 8-,4-, and 2-kHz low-pass-filtered (LPF) versions with increasing high-frequency removal, a composite stimulus containing a 1-kHz LPF-filtered version and white noise ("anchor"), and an unaltered version ("hidden reference"). Using the CI-MUSHRA methodology, these versions were simultaneously presented to participants in addition to a labeled reference. Participants listened to all versions and provided ratings based on a 100-point scale that reflected perceived sound quality difference among the versions. A total of 25 musical stimuli were tested. As comparison measures, participants completed four Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) to assess musical sound quality. Overall, compared to normal hearing (NH) listeners, CI users demonstrated an impaired ability to discriminate between unaltered and altered musical stimuli with variable amounts of high-frequency information removed. Performance using CI-MUSHRA to evaluate this parameter did not correlate to measurements of musical sound quality, as assessed by VAS. This study identified high-frequency loss as one acoustic parameter contributing to overall CI-mediated musical sound quality limitations. CI-MUSHRA provided a quantitative assessment of musical sound quality. This method offers the potential to quantify CI impairments of many different acoustic parameters related to musical sound quality in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23172009      PMCID: PMC4040823          DOI: 10.1177/1084713812465493

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  21 in total

1.  Assessment of sound quality perception in cochlear implant users during music listening.

Authors:  Alexis T Roy; Patpong Jiradejvong; Courtney Carver; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Self-reported listening habits and enjoyment of music among adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Lela Migirov; Jona Kronenberg; Yael Henkin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.547

3.  [Musical perception and enjoyment in post-lingual patients with cochlear implants].

Authors:  Luis Lassaletta; Alejandro Castro; Marta Bastarrica; Rosa Pérez-Mora; Belén Herrán; Lorena Sanz; M Josefa de Sarriá; Javier Gavilán
Journal:  Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp       Date:  2008-05

4.  The MuSIC perception test: a novel battery for testing music perception of cochlear implant users.

Authors:  S J Brockmeier; Denis Fitzgerald; Oliver Searle; Heather Fitzgerald; Mary Grasmeder; Silke Hilbig; Katrien Vermiere; Martin Peterreins; Susanne Heydner; Wolfgang Arnold
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2011-02

5.  Sex differences in emotional and psychophysiological responses to musical stimuli.

Authors:  Urs M Nater; Elvira Abbruzzese; Monika Krebs; Ulrike Ehlert
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 2.997

Review 6.  Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

7.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effects of training on recognition of musical instruments presented through cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Virginia D Driscoll; Jacob Oleson; Dingfeng Jiang; Kate Gfeller
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: a patient questionnaire.

Authors:  S Mirza; S A Douglas; P Lindsey; T Hildreth; M Hawthorne
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2003-06

10.  Development and validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception test.

Authors:  Robert Kang; Grace Liu Nimmons; Ward Drennan; Jeff Longnion; Chad Ruffin; Kaibao Nie; Jong Ho Won; Tina Worman; Bevan Yueh; Jay Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  4 in total

1.  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 2.  Assessment of music experience after cochlear implantation: A review of current tools and their utilization.

Authors:  Tiffany P Hwa; Christopher Z Wen; Michael J Ruckenstein
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-04-03

3.  Effect of Frequency Response Manipulations on Musical Sound Quality for Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jonathan Mo; Nicole T Jiam; Mickael L D Deroche; Patpong Jiradejvong; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

4.  Rapid Assessment of Non-Verbal Auditory Perception in Normal-Hearing Participants and Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Agathe Pralus; Ruben Hermann; Fanny Cholvy; Pierre-Emmanuel Aguera; Annie Moulin; Pascal Barone; Nicolas Grimault; Eric Truy; Barbara Tillmann; Anne Caclin
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.