Aaron J Parkinson1, Jay T Rubinstein2, Ward R Drennan2, Christa Dodson3, Kaibao Nie2,4. 1. Cochlear Americas, Centennial, Colorado. 2. Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Washington. 3. Univerisity of Washington Speech and Hearing Sciences, Seattle. 4. School of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, University of Washington, Bothell, Washington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not electric-acoustic music perception outcomes, observed in a recent Hybrid L24 clinical trial, were related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic cues not present in the electric domain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject design. SETTING: Academic research hospital. SUBJECTS: Nine normally hearing individuals. INTERVENTION: Simulated electric-acoustic hearing in normally hearing individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Acutely measured melody and timbre recognition scores from the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test. RESULTS: Melody recognition scores were consistently better for listening conditions that included low-frequency acoustic information. Mean scores for both acoustic (73.5%, S.D. = 15.5%) and electric-acoustic (67.9%, S.D. = 21.2%) conditions were significantly better (p < 0.001) than electric alone (39.2%, S.D. = 18.1%). This was not the case for timbre recognition for which scores were more variable across simulated listening modes with no significant differences found in mean scores across electric (36.1%, S.D. = 17.7%), acoustic (38.0%, S.D. = 20.4%), and electric-acoustic (40.7%, S.D. = 19.7%) conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Recipients of hybrid cochlear implants demonstrate music perception abilities superior to those observed in traditional cochlear implant recipients. Results from the present study support the notion that electric-acoustic stimulation confers advantages related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic hearing, most particularly for melody recognition. However, timbre recognition remains more limited for both hybrid and traditional cochlear implant users. Opportunities remain for new coding strategies to improve timbre perception.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not electric-acoustic music perception outcomes, observed in a recent Hybrid L24 clinical trial, were related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic cues not present in the electric domain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject design. SETTING: Academic research hospital. SUBJECTS: Nine normally hearing individuals. INTERVENTION: Simulated electric-acoustic hearing in normally hearing individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Acutely measured melody and timbre recognition scores from the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception (CAMP) test. RESULTS: Melody recognition scores were consistently better for listening conditions that included low-frequency acoustic information. Mean scores for both acoustic (73.5%, S.D. = 15.5%) and electric-acoustic (67.9%, S.D. = 21.2%) conditions were significantly better (p < 0.001) than electric alone (39.2%, S.D. = 18.1%). This was not the case for timbre recognition for which scores were more variable across simulated listening modes with no significant differences found in mean scores across electric (36.1%, S.D. = 17.7%), acoustic (38.0%, S.D. = 20.4%), and electric-acoustic (40.7%, S.D. = 19.7%) conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Recipients of hybrid cochlear implants demonstrate music perception abilities superior to those observed in traditional cochlear implant recipients. Results from the present study support the notion that electric-acoustic stimulation confers advantages related to the availability of low-frequency acoustic hearing, most particularly for melody recognition. However, timbre recognition remains more limited for both hybrid and traditional cochlear implant users. Opportunities remain for new coding strategies to improve timbre perception.
Authors: Kate Gfeller; Christopher Turner; Maureen Mehr; George Woodworth; Robert Fearn; John F Knutson; Shelley Witt; Julie Stordahl Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2002-03
Authors: C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke Journal: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.538
Authors: René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Marek Polak; Colin L W Driscoll; Peter Roland; Craig A Buchman Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570