Literature DB >> 31415186

Looking for Mickey Mouse™ But Finding a Munchkin: The Perceptual Effects of Frequency Upshifts for Single-Sided Deaf, Cochlear Implant Patients.

Michael F Dorman1, Sarah C Natale1, Daniel M Zeitler2, Leslie Baxter3, Jack H Noble4.   

Abstract

Purpose Our aim was to make audible for normal-hearing listeners the Mickey Mouse™ sound quality of cochlear implants (CIs) often found following device activation. Method The listeners were 3 single-sided deaf patients fit with a CI and who had 6 months or less of CI experience. Computed tomography imaging established the location of each electrode contact in the cochlea and allowed an estimate of the place frequency of the tissue nearest each electrode. For the most apical electrodes, this estimate ranged from 650 to 780 Hz. To determine CI sound quality, a clean signal (a sentence) was presented to the CI ear via a direct connect cable and candidate, and CI-like signals were presented to the ear with normal hearing via an insert receiver. The listeners rated the similarity of the candidate signals to the sound of the CI on a 1- to 10-point scale, with 10 being a complete match. Results To make the match to CI sound quality, all 3 patients need an upshift in formant frequencies (300-800 Hz) and a metallic sound quality. Two of the 3 patients also needed an upshift in voice pitch (10-80 Hz) and a muffling of sound quality. Similarity scores ranged from 8 to 9.7. Conclusion The formant frequency upshifts, fundamental frequency upshifts, and metallic sound quality experienced by the listeners can be linked to the relatively basal locations of the electrode contacts and short duration experience with their devices. The perceptual consequence was not the voice quality of Mickey Mouse™ but rather that of Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz for whom both formant frequencies and voice pitch were upshifted. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9341651.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31415186      PMCID: PMC6808340          DOI: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-18-0389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  7 in total

1.  Critical bandwidth speech: Arrays of subcritical band speech maintain near-ceiling intelligibility at high amplitudes.

Authors:  Richard M Warren; James A Bashford; Peter W Lenz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Sound source localization of filtered noises by listeners with normal hearing: a statistical analysis.

Authors:  William A Yost; Louise Loiselle; Michael Dorman; Jason Burns; Christopher A Brown
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies With Single-sided Deaf Patients.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook Natale; Austin M Butts; Daniel M Zeitler; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.802

6.  Sound Source Localization by Normal-Hearing Listeners, Hearing-Impaired Listeners and Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Louise H Loiselle; Sarah J Cook; William A Yost; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  The Relationship Between Spectral Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition: Adult Versus Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jack H Noble; Stephen M Camarata; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Robert T Dwyer; Benoit M Dawant; Mary S Dietrich; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

  7 in total
  3 in total

1.  Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Nicole Hope Capach; Jonathan D Neukam; Mahan Azadpour; Elad Sagi; Ariel Edward Hight; E Katelyn Glassman; Annette Lavender; Keena P Seward; Margaret K Miller; Nai Ding; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Upward Shifts in the Internal Representation of Frequency Can Persist Over a 3-Year Period for Cochlear Implant Patients Fit With a Relatively Short Electrode Array.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah C Natale; Jack H Noble; Daniel M Zeitler
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Approximations to the Voice of a Cochlear Implant: Explorations With Single-Sided Deaf Listeners.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook Natale; Leslie Baxter; Daniel M Zeitler; Matthew L Carlson; Artur Lorens; Henryk Skarzynski; Jeroen P M Peters; Jennifer H Torres; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.