Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects

Townshend, Brent; Cotter, N.E.; Compernolle, Dirk Van; White, Robert L.

doi:10.1121/1.395554

Cited by 276 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

183

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We wished to determine whether this rate difference helped the listener to Bhear out^the target in the mixture, thereby improving performance relative to the baseline condition. Because we wished to maximize the chances of subjects being able to exploit rate differences, we chose to introduce a difference between two quite low rates, where sensitivity in a sequential rate discrimination task is quite good, and to avoid higher rates where performance in sequential tasks often deteriorates (Shannon 1983;Tong and Clark 1985;Townshend et al 1987;McKay et al 2000;Zeng 2002). It is also worth noting that, at least for sequential tasks, discrimination of these lowrate pulse trains is better than that of the modulation rate applied to high-rate carriers, such as those used in some CI speech-processing strategies (Baumann and Nobbe 2004).…”

Section: Experiments 1a: Overview Of Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this may involve aspects of the NH neural response that would be difficult to replicate in a CI. These may include a close match between place and rate of stimulation (Oxenham et al 2004;Moore and Carlyon 2005), a reliable phase transition around the peak of the traveling wave (Kim et al 1980;Shamma 1985;Loeb 2005;Moore and Carlyon 2005), and the ability to convey periodicities of up to a few thousand Hertz, despite evidence that most CI users do not exploit temporal cues to pitch at rates above about 300 Hz (Shannon 1983;Townshend et al 1987;McKay et al 2000).…”

Section: Implications For the Development Of Cismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concurrent Sound Segregation in Electric and Acoustic Hearing

Carlyon

Long

Deeks

et al. 2007

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated potential cues to sound segregation by cochlear implant (CI) and normal-hearing (NH) listeners. In each presentation interval of experiment 1a, CI listeners heard a mixture of four pulse trains applied concurrently to separate electrodes, preceded by a Bprobe^applied to a single electrode. In one of these two intervals, which the subject had to identify, the probe electrode was the same as a Btarget^electrode in the mixture. The pulse train on the target electrode had a higher level than the others in the mixture. Additionally, it could be presented either with a 200-ms onset delay, at a lower rate, or with an asynchrony produced by delaying each pulse by about 5 ms re those on the nontarget electrodes. Neither the rate difference nor the asynchrony aided performance over and above the level difference alone, but the onset delay produced a modest improvement. Experiment 1b showed that two subjects could perform the task using the onset delay alone, with no level difference. Experiment 2 used a method similar to that of experiment 1, but investigated the onset cue using NH listeners. In one condition, the mixture consisted of harmonics 5 to 40 of a 100-Hz fundamental, with the onset of either harmonics 13 to 17 or 26 to 30 delayed re the rest. Performance was modest in this condition, but could be improved markedly by using stimuli containing a spectral gap between the target and nontarget harmonics. The results suggest that (a) CI users are unlikely to use temporal pitch differences between adjacent channels to separate concurrent sounds, and that (b) they can use onset differences between channels, but the usefulness of this cue will be compromised by the spread of excitation along the nerve-fiber array. This deleterious effect of spread-of-excitation can also impair the use of onset cues by NH listeners.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1a: Overview Of Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For the Development Of Cismentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Sound Segregation in Electric and Acoustic Hearing

Carlyon

Long

Deeks

et al. 2007

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous pitch-ranking studies in traditional cochlear implant users have indicated that both electrode location (place pitch cues) and stimulation rate (temporal pitch cues) can influence the perceived pitch (e.g., Tong et al 1982;Shannon 1983;Townshend et al 1987;McKay et al 2000). For instance, a more basal electrode will elicit a higher pitch than a more apical one, and a higher stimulation rate will elicit a higher pitch than a lower rate, up to around 300 Hz where the rate pitch cue saturates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Pitch with a Cochlear Implant Over Time

Reiss

Turner

Erenberg

et al. 2007

JARO

142

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the normal auditory system, the perceived pitch of a tone is closely linked to the cochlear place of vibration. It has generally been assumed that highrate electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant electrode also evokes a pitch sensation corresponding to the electrode_s cochlear place (Bplaceĉ ode) and stimulation rate (Btemporal^code). However, other factors may affect electric pitch sensation, such as a substantial loss of nearby nerve fibers or even higher-level perceptual changes due to experience. The goals of this study were to measure electric pitch sensations in hybrid (short-electrode) cochlear implant patients and to examine which factors might contribute to the perceived pitch. To look at effects of experience, electric pitch sensations were compared with acoustic tone references presented to the non-implanted ear at various stages of implant use, ranging from hookup to 5 years. Here, we show that electric pitch perception often shifts in frequency, sometimes by as much as two octaves, during the first few years of implant use. Additional pitch measurements in more recently implanted patients at shorter time intervals up to 1 year of implant use suggest two likely contributions to these observed pitch shifts: intersession variability (up to one octave) and slow, systematic changes over time. We also found that the early pitch sensations for a constant electrode location can vary greatly across subjects and that these variations are strongly correlated with speech reception performance. Specifically, patients with an early low-pitch sensation tend to perform poorly with the implant compared to those with an early high-pitch sensation, which may be linked to less nerve survival in the basal end of the cochlea in the low-pitch patients. In contrast, late pitch sensations show no correlation with speech perception. These results together suggest that early pitch sensations may more closely reflect peripheral innervation patterns, while later pitch sensations may reflect higher-level, experience-dependent changes. These pitch shifts over time not only raise questions for strict place-based theories of pitch perception, but also imply that experience may have a greater influence on cochlear implant perception than previously thought.

show abstract

“…Pitch sensations produced by multichannel cochlear implants have been extensively investigated in bilaterally deaf subjects using pitch-ranking experiments (Simmons et al 1979;Shannon 1983;Townshend et al 1987;Dorman et al 1990;Busby et al 1994;Nelson et al 1995;Collins et al 1997;Collins and Throckmorton, 2000) or pitch-estimation experiments (Eddington 1980;Tong et al 1983;Tong and Clark 1985;Shannon 1993;Busby et al 1994;Cohen et al 1996a;Busby and Clark 1997;Collins et al 1997). These studies demonstrated that electric stimulation of the ear produced complex auditory sensations, one component of which was similar to pitch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic to Electric Pitch Comparisons in Cochlear Implant Subjects with Residual Hearing

Boëx

Baud

Cosendai

et al. 2006

JARO

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the frequencyposition function resulting from electric stimulation of electrodes in cochlear implant subjects with significant residual hearing in their nonimplanted ear. Six cochlear implant users compared the pitch of the auditory sensation produced by stimulation of an intracochlear electrode to the pitch of acoustic pure tones presented to their contralateral nonimplanted ear. Subjects were implanted with different Clarion \ electrode arrays, designed to lie close to the inner wall of the cochlea. High-resolution radiographs were used to determine the electrode positions in the cochlea. Four out of six subjects presented electrode insertions deeper than 450-. We used a two-interval (one acoustic, one electric), two-alternative forced choice protocol (2I-2AFC), asking the subject to indicate which stimulus sounded the highest in pitch. Pure tones were used as acoustic stimuli. Electric stimuli consisted of trains of biphasic pulses presented at relatively high rates [higher than 700 pulses per second (pps)]. First, all electric stimuli were balanced in loudness across electrodes. Second, acoustic pure tones, chosen to approximate roughly the pitch sensation produced by each electrode, were balanced in loudness to electric stimuli. When electrode insertion lengths were used to describe electrode positions, the pitch sensations produced by electric stimulation were found to be more than two octaves lower than predicted by Greenwood's frequency-position function. When insertion angles were used to describe electrode positions, the pitch sensations were found about one octave lower than the frequency-position function of a normal ear. The difference found between both descriptions is because of the fact that these electrode arrays were designed to lie close to the modiolus. As a consequence, the site of excitation produced at the level of the organ of Corti corresponds to a longer length than the electrode insertion length, which is used in Greenwood's function. Although exact measurements of the round window position as well as the length of the cochlea could explain the remaining one octave difference found when insertion angles were used, physiological phenomena (e.g., stimulation of the spiral ganglion cells) could also create this difference. From these data, analysis filters could be determined in sound coding strategies to match the pitch percepts elicited by electrode stimulation. This step might be of main importance for music perception and for the fitting of bilateral cochlear implants.

show abstract

Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects

Cited by 276 publications

References 0 publications

Concurrent Sound Segregation in Electric and Acoustic Hearing

Concurrent Sound Segregation in Electric and Acoustic Hearing

Changes in Pitch with a Cochlear Implant Over Time

Acoustic to Electric Pitch Comparisons in Cochlear Implant Subjects with Residual Hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About