Literature DB >> 25445816

Gradual adaptation to auditory frequency mismatch.

Mario A Svirsky1, Thomas M Talavage2, Shivank Sinha3, Heidi Neuburger4, Mahan Azadpour5.   

Abstract

What is the best way to help humans adapt to a distorted sensory input? Interest in this question is more than academic. The answer may help facilitate auditory learning by people who became deaf after learning language and later received a cochlear implant (a neural prosthesis that restores hearing through direct electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve). There is evidence that some cochlear implants (which provide information that is spectrally degraded to begin with) stimulate neurons with higher characteristic frequency than the acoustic frequency of the original stimulus. In other words, the stimulus is shifted in frequency with respect to what the listener expects to hear. This frequency misalignment may have a negative influence on speech perception by CI users. However, a perfect frequency-place alignment may result in the loss of important low frequency speech information. A trade-off may involve a gradual approach: start with correct frequency-place alignment to allow listeners to adapt to the spectrally degraded signal first, and then gradually increase the frequency shift to allow them to adapt to it over time. We used an acoustic model of a cochlear implant to measure adaptation to a frequency-shifted signal, using either the gradual approach or the "standard" approach (sudden imposition of the frequency shift). Listeners in both groups showed substantial auditory learning, as measured by increases in speech perception scores over the course of fifteen one-hour training sessions. However, the learning process was faster for listeners who were exposed to the gradual approach. These results suggest that gradual rather than sudden exposure may facilitate perceptual learning in the face of a spectrally degraded, frequency-shifted input. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled <Lasker Award>.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25445816      PMCID: PMC4380802          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.10.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  48 in total

1.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  S Rosen; A Faulkner; L Wilkinson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Epilogue: factors contributing to long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in early childhood.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Michael J Strube; Emily A Tobey; David B Pisoni; Jean S Moog
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Effect of different types of auditory stimulation on vowel formant frequencies in multichannel cochlear implant users.

Authors:  M A Svirsky; E A Tobey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  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

6.  Sensitivity to interaural level difference and loudness growth with bilateral bimodal stimulation.

Authors:  Tom Francart; Jan Brokx; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-04-07       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Changes in sound pressure and fundamental frequency contours following changes in hearing status.

Authors:  H Lane; J Wozniak; M Matthies; M Svirsky; J Perkell; M O'Connell; J Manzella
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Vision guides the adjustment of auditory localization in young barn owls.

Authors:  E I Knudsen; P F Knudsen
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-11-01       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Emily A Tobey; Donna Thal; John K Niparko; Laurie S Eisenberg; Alexandra L Quittner; Nae-Yuh Wang
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Adaptation to distorted frequency-to-place maps: implications of simulations in normal listeners for cochlear implants and electroacoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Andrew Faulkner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

View more
  19 in total

1.  A Smartphone Application for Customized Frequency Table Selection in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Daniel Jethanamest; Mahan Azadpour; Annette M Zeman; Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Effect of carrier bandwidth on integration of simulations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

Authors:  Jessica M Wess; Nathaniel J Spencer; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Matthew J Goupell; Nathaniel J Spencer; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Insertion Depth and Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 28- and 31.5-mm Lateral Wall Arrays.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Matthew M Dedmon; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Nonlinguistic Outcome Measures in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Over the First Year of Implantation.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jong Ho Won; Alden O Timme; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Erin Glennon; Mario A Svirsky; Robert C Froemke
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 6.627

9.  Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Long-Term Influence of Electrode Array Length on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.