Literature DB >> 23632651

Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

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

Abstract

Differences in fundamental frequency (F0) provide an important cue for segregating simultaneous sounds. Cochlear implants (CIs) transmit F0 information primarily through the periodicity of the temporal envelope of the electrical pulse trains. Successful segregation of sounds with different F0s requires the ability to process multiple F0s simultaneously, but it is unknown whether CI users have this ability. This study measured modulation frequency discrimination thresholds for half-wave rectified sinusoidal envelopes modulated at 115 Hz in CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners. The target modulation was presented in isolation or in the presence of an interferer. Discrimination thresholds were strongly affected by the presence of an interferer, even when it was unmodulated and spectrally remote. Interferer modulation increased interference and often led to very high discrimination thresholds, especially when the interfering modulation frequency was lower than that of the target. Introducing a temporal offset between the interferer and the target led to at best modest improvements in performance in CI users and NH listeners. The results suggest no fundamental difference between acoustic and electric hearing in processing single or multiple envelope-based F0s, but confirm that differences in F0 are unlikely to provide a robust cue for perceptual segregation in CI users.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632651      PMCID: PMC3705089          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0391-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  35 in total

1.  Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Astrid van Wieringen; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: harmonic resolvability or harmonic number?

Authors:  Joshua G Bernstein; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Pitch perception for mixtures of spectrally overlapping harmonic complex tones.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Michael V Keebler; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Pitch discrimination interference: the role of pitch pulse asynchrony.

Authors:  Hedwig Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Detection and F0 discrimination of harmonic complex tones in the presence of competing tones or noise.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Joshua G W Bernstein; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences.

Authors:  Ginger S Stickney; Peter F Assmann; Janice Chang; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Masker asynchrony impairs the fundamental-frequency discrimination of unresolved harmonics.

Authors:  R P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Behavioral and physiological correlates of temporal pitch perception in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Suresh Mahendran; John M Deeks; Christopher J Long; Patrick Axon; David Baguley; Stefan Bleeck; Ian M Winter
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Concurrent sound segregation in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-10
View more
  14 in total

1.  Revisiting place and temporal theories of pitch.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Acoust Sci Technol       Date:  2013

2.  Fundamental-frequency discrimination based on temporal-envelope cues: Effects of bandwidth and interference.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant listeners under forward masking conditions.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Aditya M Kulkarni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The Perception of Multiple Simultaneous Pitches as a Function of Number of Spectral Channels and Spectral Spread in a Noise-Excited Envelope Vocoder.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Hao Lu; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-11

7.  Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Fawen Zhang; Gabrielle Underwood; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; David R Moore; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 8.  How We Hear: The Perception and Neural Coding of Sound.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 24.137

9.  Advantages of Pulse Rate Compared to Modulation Frequency for Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Susan R S Bissmeyer; Andres Camarena
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-03

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.