Effects of stimulus level on nonspectral frequency discrimination by human subjects

Pfingst, Bryan E.; Holloway, Lisa A.; Poopat, Natee; Subramanya, Arohan R.; Warren, Melissa F.; Zwolan, Teresa A.

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(94)90026-4

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from pulse rate discrimination ͑Eddington et al., 1978;Pfingst, 1988;Pfingst et al, 1994;Townshend et al, 1987͒ and pulse rate identification ͑Lim and Tong, 1989;Tong and Clark, 1985͒ studies have been consistent with these findings in that performance has been markedly poorer at higher rates ͑Ͼ300-500 pulses/s͒ than at lower rates. There has, however, been considerable variability in performance across patients.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Postlinguistically deafened cochlear implant patients are generally able to perceive pitch related differences in electric pulse rates in the range from about 50 to 300-500 pulses/s ͑Eddington et al., 1978;Lim and Tong, 1989;Pfingst, 1988;Pfingst et al, 1994;Shannon, 1983Shannon, , 1993Tong et al, 1983;Townshend et al, 1987͒. In studies using numerical estimation, pitch increases with increases in pulse rate up to 300-500 pulses/s and does not markedly change at higher rates ͑Lim and Tong, 1989;Shannon, 1983Shannon, , 1993Tong et al, 1983͒. Results from pulse rate discrimination ͑Eddington et al., 1978;Pfingst, 1988;Pfingst et al, 1994;Townshend et al, 1987͒ and pulse rate identification ͑Lim and Tong, 1989;Tong and Clark, 1985͒ studies have been consistent with these findings in that performance has been markedly poorer at higher rates ͑Ͼ300-500 pulses/s͒ than at lower rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients

Busby

Clark

1997

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical estimates of loudness and pitch for electric pulse rates were obtained from 14 patients using the 22 electrode cochlear implant manufactured by Cochlear Limited. Six patients were postlinguistically deafened adults, and eight patients were adults and children who became deaf very early in life. Comparisons were made between two types of pulse rate patterns. The SPP pulse pattern presented a single pulse every period, the inverse of the pulse rate. The MPP pulse pattern presented multiple pulses in the first half of the period, using a rate of 1000 pulses/s, with no stimulation in the second half of the period. The pulse rates used for the SPP and MPP pulse patterns were 71.4-500 pulses/s, which corresponded to periods of 14-2 ms. For the SPP pulse pattern, the total number of pulses over the duration of the stimulus increased with increases in pulse rate, while for the MPP pulse pattern, the total number of pulses remained constant. Pitch and loudness estimates were obtained from the postlinguistically deafened patients for the SPP and MPP pulse patterns, and from the early-deafened patients for the MPP pulse pattern. Loudness estimates for the SPP pulse pattern increased with increases in pulse rate for all postlinguistically deafened patients. Loudness estimates for the MPP pulse pattern decreased with increases in pulse rate for three of the six postlinguistically deafened patients and for six of the eight early-deafened patients. For the other patients (three postlinguistically deafened and two early-deafened), loudness estimates marginally increased with increases in pulse rate. Pitch estimates for the SPP and MPP pulse patterns increased with increases in pulse rate for the six postlinguistically deafened patients. For the early-deafened patients, pitch estimates for the MPP pulse patterns increased with increases in pulse rate for only five of the eight patients. For the other three early-deafened patients, pitch estimates were similar to the loudness estimates and decreased with increases in pulse rate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients

Busby

Clark

1997

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a review of 5 more recent studies from which data were obtained with a total of 19 subjects (Pfingst et al, 1994;van Hoesel and Clark, 1997;McKay and McDermott, 1999;McKay et al, 2000;Zeng, 2002), Moore and Carlyon (2005) reported an average rate difference limen of 7.3% at a rate of 100 Hz. However, the results varied greatly among subjects, and were also dependent on the details of the procedure applied in the experiments.…”

Section: Temporal Pitch Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review

McDermott

2004

Trends in Amplification

450

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acceptance of cochlear implantation as an effective and safe treatment for deafness has increased steadily over the past quarter century. The earliest devices were the first implanted prostheses found to be successful in compensating partially for lost sensory function by direct electrical stimulation of nerves. Initially, the main intention was to provide limited auditory sensations to people with profound or total sensorineural hearing impairment in both ears. Although the first cochlear implants aimed to provide patients with little more than awareness of environmental sounds and some cues to assist visual speech-reading, the technology has advanced rapidly. Currently, most people with modern cochlear implant systems can understand speech using the device alone, at least in favorable listening conditions. In recent years, an increasing research effort has been directed towards implant users’ perception of nonspeech sounds, especially music. This paper reviews that research, discusses the published experimental results in terms of both psychophysical observations and device function, and concludes with some practical suggestions about how perception of music might be enhanced for implant recipients in the future. The most significant findings of past research are: (1) On average, implant users perceive rhythm about as well as listeners with normal hearing; (2) Even with technically sophisticated multiple-channel sound processors, recognition of melodies, especially without rhythmic or verbal cues, is poor, with performance at little better than chance levels for many implant users; (3) Perception of timbre, which is usually evaluated by experimental procedures that require subjects to identify musical instrument sounds, is generally unsatisfactory; (4) Implant users tend to rate the quality of musical sounds as less pleasant than listeners with normal hearing; (5) Auditory training programs that have been devised specifically to provide implant users with structured musical listening experience may improve the subjective acceptability of music that is heard through a prosthesis; (6) Pitch perception might be improved by designing innovative sound processors that use both temporal and spatial patterns of electric stimulation more effectively and precisely to overcome the inherent limitations of signal coding in existing implant systems; (7) For the growing population of implant recipients who have usable acoustic hearing, at least for low-frequency sounds, perception of music is likely to be much better with combined acoustic and electric stimulation than is typical for deaf people who rely solely on the hearing provided by their prostheses.

show abstract

“…Modulation detection and modulation-frequency discrimination improve as a function of level throughout the dynamic range of electrical hearing (Pfingst et al, 1994;Fu, 2002). Therefore, the level of the stimulus must be taken into account in comparing modulation detection across various stimulus conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants

Pfingst

Thompson

2007

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most modern cochlear-implant speech processors convey speech-envelope information using amplitude-modulated pulse trains. The use of higher-rate carrier pulse trains allows more envelope detail in the signal. However, neural response properties could limit the efficacy of high-rate carriers. This study examined effects of carrier rate and stimulation site, on psychophysical modulation detection thresholds (MDTs). Both of these variables could affect the neural representation of the carrier and thus affect perception of the modulation. Twelve human subjects with cochlear implants were tested. Phase duration of symmetric biphasic pulses was modulated sinusoidally at 40 Hz. MDTs were determined for monopolar stimulation at two carrier rates [250 and 4000 pulses/s (pps)], three stimulation sites (basal, middle, and apical), and five stimulus levels (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of the dynamic range). MDTs were lower for 250 pps carriers than for 4000 pps carriers in 71% of the 180 cases studied. Effects of carrier rate were greatest at the apical stimulation site and effects of stimulation site on MDTs depended on carrier rate. The data suggest a distinct disadvantage to using carrier pulse rates as high as 4000 pps. Stimulation site should be considered in evaluating modulation detection ability.

show abstract

Effects of stimulus level on nonspectral frequency discrimination by human subjects

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients

Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients

Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review

Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About