Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related potential study

Abstract

Objective: Compare the processing of music-syntactic irregularities and physical oddballs between cochlear implant (CI) users and matched controls.Methods: Musical chord sequences were presented, some of which contained functionally irregular chords, or a chord with an instrumental timbre that deviated from the standard timbre.Results: In both controls and CI users, functionally irregular chords elicited early (around 200 ms) and late (around 500 ms) negative electric brain responses (early right anterior negativity,ERAN and N5). Amplitudes of effects depended on the degree of music-syntactic irregularity in both groups; effects elicited in CI users were distinctly smaller than in controls. Physically deviant chords elicited a timbremismatch negativity (MMN) and a P3 in both groups, again with smaller amplitudes in CI users.Conclusions: ERAN and N5 (as well as timbre-MMN and P3), can be elicited in CI users. Although amplitudes of effects were considerably smaller in the CI group, the presence of MMN and ERAN indicates that neural mechanisms of both physical and musicsyntactic irregularity-detection were active in this group.

Empirical evidence for musical syntax processing? Computer simulations reveal the contribution of auditory short-term memory

“…In a set of studies (Koelsch et al, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004), a Neapolitan sixth chord was used as the unrelated target. This chord is analyzed in music theory as a substitution of the subdominant chord, which is usually followed by a dominant seventh chord.…”

Semi-automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials

“…In some CI users the absence of artifacts in EEG recordings has been reported (Zhang et al, 2010). Moreover, at least one study suggested electrical artifacts only occur at response latencies different from cortical AEPs and thus did not report difficulties in the measurement of AEPs (Koelsch et al, 2004). It has also been speculated that the CI artifact may be present only until one year after CI activation (Lonka et al, 2004).…”

“…Several studies have used AEPs to investigate how the auditory cortex adapts to the artificial input provided by a cochlear implant (CI). Examples are the measurement of the P1 response to investigate the functional development of the auditory cortex in children fitted with CIs (Gilley et al, 2008;Sharma et al, 2005), the study of brain asymmetries in the auditory cortex (Debener et al, 2008;Sandmann et al, 2009), the investigation of neural correlates of musical sound perception (Koelsch et al, 2004;Sandmann et al, 2010), and the relationship of AEPs to speech perception (Henkin et al, 2009;Kelly et al, 2005;Lonka et al, 2004;Zhang et al, 2010Zhang et al, , 2011. Based on those and other studies it has been suggested that the functional integrity of the auditory system from CI users, which varies widely across patients, as well as the capacity for cortical plasticity, deserves more attention when investigating implantation outcome (Moore and Shannon, 2009;Wilson and Dorman, 2008).…”

Music Training Improves Pitch Perception in Prelingually Deafened Children With Cochlear Implants

“…9 Furthermore, magnetoencephalographic evidence of auditory plasticity has been noted in sudden deafness. 10,11 This plasticity facilitates tone perception in individuals with cochlear implants, which can be mirrored by the progressive optimization of neuromagnetic responses that are evoked by auditory stimuli after implantation.…”