Literature DB >> 31385149

Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Justin M Aronoff1,2, Hannah E Staisloff3, Abbigail Kirchner3, Daniel H Lee3, Julia Stelmach3.   

Abstract

There is often a mismatch for bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users between the electrodes in the two ears that receive the same frequency allocation and the electrodes that, when stimulated, yield the same pitch. Studies with CI users who have extreme mismatches between the two ears show that adaptation occurs in terms of pitch matching, reducing the difference between which electrodes receive the same frequency allocation and which ones produce the same pitch. The considerable adaptation that occurs for these extreme cases suggests that adaptation should be sufficient to overcome the relatively minor mismatches seen with typical bilateral CI users. However, even those with many years of bilateral CI use continue to demonstrate a mismatch. This may indicate that adaptation only occurs when there are large mismatches. Alternatively, it may indicate that adaptation occurs regardless of the magnitude of the mismatch, but that adaptation is proportional to the magnitude of the mismatch, and thus never fully counters the original mismatch. To investigate this, six bilateral CI users with initial pitch-matching mismatches of less than 3 mm completed a pitch-matching task near the time of activation, 6 months after activation, and 1 year after activation. Despite relatively small initial mismatches, the results indicated that adaptation still occurred.

Keywords:  adaptation; bilateral cochlear implants; pitch matching; post-activation

Year:  2019        PMID: 31385149      PMCID: PMC6888776          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-019-00733-3

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


  22 in total

1.  Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Donald K Eddington; H Steven Colburn; William M Rabinowitz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Dawn Burton Koch; Mark Downing; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Sensitivity to interaural time difference with bilateral cochlear implants: Development over time and effect of interaural electrode spacing.

Authors:  Becky B Poon; Donald K Eddington; Victor Noel; H Steven Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Monaural sound localization revisited.

Authors:  F L Wightman; D J Kistler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; Selena Liao; Jillian J Becker; Carrie E Lakin; Frank M Warren; Sean O McMenomey
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Binaural advantages in hearing of speech.

Authors:  N W MacKeith; R R Coles
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1971-03       Impact factor: 1.469

7.  Binaural Pitch Fusion in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jennifer R Fowler; Curtis L Hartling; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Unilateral spectral and temporal compression reduces binaural fusion for normal hearing listeners with cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Corey Shayman; Akila Prasad; Deepa Suneel; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-12-27       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Mary W Lowder; Sue A Karsten; Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  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

View more
  4 in total

1.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

Review 2.  Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.

Authors:  Sabrina H Pieper; Noura Hamze; Stefan Brill; Sabine Hochmuth; Mats Exter; Marek Polak; Andreas Radeloff; Michael Buschermöhle; Mathias Dietz
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

3.  Binaural Pitch Fusion in Children With Normal Hearing, Hearing Aids, and Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Curtis L Hartling; Jennifer R Fowler; Gemaine N Stark; Bess Glickman; Morgan Eddolls; Yonghee Oh; Katrina Ramsey; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Kenneth K Jensen; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Jack H Noble; Michael Hoa; H Jeffery Kim; Robert Shih; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 6.709

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.