Literature DB >> 8759961

The perception of temporal patterns for electrical stimulation presented at one or two intracochlear sites.

C M McKay1, H J McDermott.   

Abstract

The question of how well the temporal structure in pulsatile electrical stimulation is perceived, and the nature of the information that may be conveyed by this temporal structure, is of importance to the further development of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. The two experiments described here investigated the perception of temporal fine structure in amplitude modulated 1-kHz pulse trains, both when a single electrode position was used, and when the pulses alternated between two electrode positions. Five subjects with the Mini System 22 implant took part in these experiments. The amplitude modulations were constructed so that all dual-electrode stimuli had the same temporal pattern on each individual electrode but differed in the aggregate temporal pattern A hypothesis was investigated that subjects perceive the aggregate temporal pattern rather than the pattern at each individual electrode place, only when the electrodes are less than a critical distance apart. The first of these two experiments used a four-interval forced-choice task to measure the ability of subjects to detect changes in the aggregate temporal pattern. At electrode distances greater than 3 to 4 mm, subjects could no longer perceive the aggregate pattern, confirming the hypothesis. The second experiment used a single-interval pitch estimation task to test the hypothesis that the perceptual differences in temporal patterns measured in the previous experiment were classified similarly to rate pitch differences by the subjects. The results confirmed this hypothesis, and showed that the pitch of the modulated stimuli could be predicted by the expected inter-pulse intervals in the excited neural population.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8759961     DOI: 10.1121/1.416294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  13 in total

1.  Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-10-20

2.  Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Sandra I Oba
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-12

3.  Discrimination of Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jeff K Longnion; Chad Ruffin; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-12-08

4.  Binaural unmasking of multi-channel stimuli in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lieselot Van Deun; Astrid van Wieringen; Tom Francart; Andreas Büchner; Thomas Lenarz; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-06-09

5.  Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.

Authors:  Myles Mc Laughlin; Richard B Reilly; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

Review 7.  Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

8.  MUSIC APPRECIATION AND TRAINING FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS: A REVIEW.

Authors:  Valerie Looi; Kate Gfeller; Virginia Driscoll
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2012-11-19

9.  The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Wiebke Lamping; Tobias Goehring; Jeremy Marozeau; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Temporal pitch percepts elicited by dual-channel stimulation of a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.