Objectives: Cochlear implants (CIs) restore speech perception in quiet but they also eliminate or distort many acoustic cues that are important for music enjoyment. Unfortunately, quantifying music enjoyment by CI users has been difficult because comparisons must rely on their recollection of music before they lost their hearing. Here, we aimed to assess music enjoyment in CI users using a readily interpretable reference based on acoustic hearing. The comparison was done by testing “single-sided deafness” (SSD) patients who have normal hearing (NH) in one ear and a CI in the other ear. The study also aimed to assess binaural musical enjoyment, with the reference being the experience of hearing with a single NH ear. Three experiments assessed the effect of adding different kinds of input to the second ear: electrical, vocoded, or unmodified. Design: In experiment 1, music enjoyment in SSD-CI users was investigated using a modified version of the MUSHRA (MUltiple Stimuli with Hidden Reference and Anchor) method. Listeners rated their enjoyment of song segments on a scale of 0 to 200, where 100 represented the enjoyment obtained from a song segment presented to the NH ear, 0 represented a highly degraded version of the same song segment presented to the same ear, and 200 represented enjoyment subjectively rated as twice as good as the 100 reference. Stimuli consisted of acoustic only, electric only, acoustic and electric, as well as other conditions with low pass filtered acoustic stimuli. Acoustic stimulation was provided by headphone to the NH ear and electric stimulation was provided by direct audio input to the subject’s speech processor. In experiment 2, the task was repeated using NH listeners who received vocoded stimuli instead of electric stimuli. Experiment 3 tested the effect of adding the same unmodified song segment to the second ear, also in NH listeners. Results: Music presented through the CI only was very unpleasant, with an average rating of 20. Surprisingly, the combination of the unpleasant CI signal in one ear with acoustic stimulation in the other ear was rated more enjoyable (mean = 123) than acoustic processing alone. Presentation of the same monaural musical signal to both ears in NH listeners resulted with even greater enhancement of the experience compared with presentation to a single ear (mean = 159). Repeating the experiment using a vocoder to one ear of NH listeners resulted in interference rather than enhancement. Conclusions: Music enjoyment from electric stimulation is extremely poor relative to a readily interpretable NH baseline for CI-SSD listeners. However, the combination of this unenjoyable signal presented through a CI and an unmodified acoustic signal presented to a NH (or near-NH) contralateral ear results in enhanced music enjoyment with respect to the acoustic signal alone. Remarkably, this two-ear enhancement experienced by CI-SSD listeners represents a substantial fraction of the two-ear enhancement seen in NH listeners. This unexpected benefit of electroacoustic auditory stimulation will have to be considered in theoretical accounts of music enjoyment and may facilitate the quest to enhance music enjoyment in CI users.

Objective:To investigate a new surgical and signal processing technique that provides apical stimulation of the cochlea using a cochlear implant without extending the length of the electrode array.Patients:Three adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation using this new technique.Interventions:The patients received a cochlear implant. The surgery differed from the standard approach in that a ground electrode was placed in the cochlear helicotrema via an apical cochleostomy rather than in its typical location underneath the temporalis muscle. Clinical fitting was modified such that low frequencies were represented using the apically placed electrode as a ground.Main Outcome Measures:Pitch scaling and speech recognition.Results:All surgeries were successful with no complications. Pitch scaling demonstrated that use of the apically placed electrode as a ground lowered the perceived pitch of electric stimulation relative to monopolar stimulation. Speech understanding was improved compared with preoperative scores.Conclusions:The new surgical approach and clinical fitting are feasible. A lower pitch is perceived when using the apically placed electrode as a ground relative to stimulation using an extracochlear ground (i.e., monopolar mode), suggesting that stimulation can be provided more apically without the use of a longer electrode array. Further work is required to determine potential improvements in outcomes and optimal signal processing for the new approach.

Objectives: Pitch is poorly perceived by cochlear implant (CI) users. However, as it is not well understood how pitch is encoded with electric stimulation, improving pitch representation with a CI is challenging. Changes in place of stimulation along the cochlea have been described as changes in pitch and can be accurately ranked by CI users. However, it remains unknown if place-pitch can be used to encode musical intervals, which are a necessary attribute of pitch. The objective of these experiments is to determine if place-pitch coding can be used to represent musical intervals with a CI. Design: In the first experiment, 10 CI users and 10 normal hearing (NH) controls were tested on their sensitivity to changes in the semitone spacing between each of the notes in the melody “Happy Birthday.” The changes were implemented by uniformly expanding or compressing the frequency differences between each note in the melody. The participant’s task was to scale how “out-of-tune” the melody was for various semitone spacing distortions. The notes were represented by pure-tones ≥440 Hz to minimize potential useful temporal information from the stimuli. A second experiment replicated the first experiment using single-sided deafened CI users allowing for a within-subject control. A third experiment verified that the CI users who participated in Experiment 1 were each able to determine pitch direction reliably. Results: Unlike NH listeners, CI listeners often ranked all distortions of interval spacing similarly in both the first and second experiment, and no effect of interval spacing was detected across CI users. Some participants found distorted interval spacings to be less out-of-tune than the nominally correct interval spacings. However, these patterns were inconsistent across listeners. Although performance was better for the NH listeners, the third experiment demonstrated that the CI listeners were able to reliably identify changes in pitch direction from place-pitch coding. Conclusions: The data suggest that place-pitch intervals are not properly represented through a CI sound processor. Some limited support is found for place-pitch being useful for interval encoding as some participants demonstrated improved ratings for certain interval distortions. Presumably the interval representation for these participants could be improved by a change to the frequencies represented by each electrode. However, as these patterns vary across listeners, there is not a universal correction to frequency representation that will solve this issue. As results are similar for single-sided deafened CI users, the limitations in ratings are likely not limited by an eroded representation of the melody caused by an extended duration of deafness.

No abstract

Objectives: The auditory experience of early deafened pediatric cochlear implant (CI) users is different from that of postlingually deafened adult CI users due to disparities in the developing auditory system. It is therefore expected that the auditory psychophysical capabilities between these two groups would differ. In this study, temporal resolving ability was investigated using a temporal modulation detection task to compare the performance outcomes between these two groups. Design: The minimum detectable modulation depth of amplitude modulated broadband noise at 100 Hz was measured for 11 early deafened children with a CI and 16 postlingually deafened adult CI users. Results: Amplitude modulation detection thresholds were significantly lower (i.e., better) for the pediatric CI users than for the adult CI users. Within each group, modulation detection thresholds were not significantly associated with chronologic age, age at implantation, or years of CI experience. Conclusions: Early implanted children whose auditory systems develop in response to electric stimulation demonstrate better temporal resolving abilities than postlingually deafened adult CI users. This finding provides evidence to suggest that early implanted children might benefit from sound coding strategies emphasizing temporal information.