Literature DB >> 34340020

Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Raymond L Goldsworthy1, Andres Camarena2, Susan R S Bissmeyer3.   

Abstract

Cochlear implants are medical devices that have been used to restore hearing to more than half a million people worldwide. Most recipients achieve high levels of speech comprehension through these devices, but speech comprehension in background noise and music appreciation in general are markedly poor compared to normal hearing. A key aspect of hearing that is notably diminished in cochlear implant outcomes is the sense of pitch provided by these devices. Pitch perception is an important factor affecting speech comprehension in background noise and is critical for music perception. The present article summarizes two experiments that examine the robustness and resolution of pitch perception as provided by cochlear implant stimulation timing. The driving hypothesis is that pitch conveyed by stimulation timing cues is more robust and better resolved when provided by variable pulse rates than by modulation frequency of constant-rate stimulation. Experiment 1 examines the robustness for hearing a large, one-octave, pitch difference in the presence of interfering electrical stimulation. With robustness to interference characterized for an otherwise easily discernible pitch difference, Experiment 2 examines the resolution of discrimination thresholds in the presence of interference as conveyed by modulation frequency or by pulse rate. These experiments test for an advantage of stimulation with precise temporal cues. The results indicate that pitch provided by pulse rate is both more robust to interference and is better resolved compared to when provided by modulation frequency. These results should inform the development of new sound processing strategies for cochlear implants designed to encode fundamental frequency of sounds into precise temporal stimulation.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory neuroscience; Cochlear implants; Interference; Modulation; Pitch

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34340020      PMCID: PMC9343238          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.672


  67 in total

1.  Phase locking of auditory-nerve fibers to the envelopes of high-frequency sounds: implications for sound localization.

Authors:  Anna Dreyer; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-06-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Ying-Yee Kong; Henry J Michalewski; Arnold Starr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 3. ECAP during bursts and loudness as function of burst duration.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  The effect of overall level on sensitivity to interaural differences of time and level at high frequencies.

Authors:  Mathias Dietz; Leslie R Bernstein; Constantine Trahiotis; Stephan D Ewert; Volker Hohmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; David A Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30

6.  Long-term improvement of speech perception with the fine structure processing coding strategy in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Andrea Kleine Punte; Marc De Bodt; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 1.538

7.  Sensitivity to envelope-based interaural delays at high frequencies: center frequency affects the envelope rate-limitation.

Authors:  Leslie R Bernstein; Constantine Trahiotis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  A computer interface for psychophysical and speech research with the Nucleus cochlear implant.

Authors:  R V Shannon; D D Adams; R L Ferrel; R L Palumbo; M Grandgenett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Principles of design and biological approaches for improving the selectivity of cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  Stephen J O'Leary; Rachael R Richardson; Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 5.379

10.  The musician effect: does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations?

Authors:  Christina D Fuller; John J Galvin; Bert Maat; Rolien H Free; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.