Literature DB >> 24437773

Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.

Raymond L Goldsworthy1, Robert V Shannon2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which cochlear implant (CI) rate discrimination can be improved through training. Six adult CI users took part in a study that included 32 h of training and assessment on rate discrimination measures. Rate difference limens (DLs) were measured from 110 to 3520 Hz in octave steps using 500 ms biphasic pulse trains; the target and standard stimuli were loudness-balanced with the target always at an adaptively lower rate. DLs were measured at four electrode positions corresponding to basal, mid-basal, mid-apical, and apical locations. Procedural variations were implemented to determine if rate discrimination was impacted by random variations in stimulus amplitude or by amplitude modulation. DLs improved by more than a factor of 2 across subjects, electrodes, and standard rates. Factor analysis indicated that the effect of training was comparable for all electrodes and standard rates tested. Neither level roving nor amplitude modulation had a significant effect on rate DLs. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that training can significantly improve CI rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24437773      PMCID: PMC3985914          DOI: 10.1121/1.4835735

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


  29 in total

1.  The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Perceptual differences between low and high rates of stimulation on single electrodes for cochlear implantees.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Influence of musical and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Karine Delhommeau; Xavier Perrot; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 3.208

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

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; E Javel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  The role of intensity upon pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Christoph Arnoldner; Alexandra Kaider; Jafar Hamzavi
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Long-term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Lloyd A Roberts; Antonio G Paolini
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.386

9.  Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results.

Authors:  Christoph Arnoldner; Dominik Riss; Markus Brunner; Martin Durisin; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  16 in total

1.  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

2.  Environmental sound training in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Sejal Kuvadia; Brian Gygi
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Computational Modeling of Synchrony in the Auditory Nerve in Response to Acoustic and Electric Stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.387

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Sensitivity to Envelope Interaural Time Differences at High Modulation Rates.

Authors:  Jessica J M Monaghan; Stefan Bleeck; David McAlpine
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.