Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear

被引:89
作者
Carlyon, Robert P. [1 ]
Macherey, Olivier [1 ]
Frijns, Johan H. M. [2 ]
Axon, Patrick R. [5 ]
Kalkman, Randy K. [2 ]
Boyle, Patrick [4 ]
Baguley, David M. [5 ]
Briggs, John [5 ]
Deeks, John M. [1 ]
Briaire, Jeroen J. [2 ]
Barreau, Xavier [3 ]
Dauman, Rene [3 ]
机构
[1] MRC Cognit & Brain Sci Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, England
[2] Leiden Univ, Leiden, Netherlands
[3] Hop Pellegrin, F-33076 Bordeaux, France
[4] Adv Bion, Great Shelford, England
[5] Addenbrookes NHS Trust Cambridge Univ Hosp, Cambridge, England
来源
JARO-JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY | 2010年 / 11卷 / 04期
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
cochlear implants; pitch; RATE DISCRIMINATION; MULTISECTION CT; TEMPORAL PITCH; FREQUENCY; PERCEPTION; MODEL; JUDGMENTS; POSITION; TONES; CUES;
D O I
10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Four cochlear implant users, having normal hearing in the unimplanted ear, compared the pitches of electrical and acoustic stimuli presented to the two ears. Comparisons were between 1,031-pps pulse trains and pure tones or between 12 and 25-pps electric pulse trains and bandpass-filtered acoustic pulse trains of the same rate. Three methods-pitch adjustment, constant stimuli, and interleaved adaptive procedures-were used. For all methods, we showed that the results can be strongly influenced by non-sensory biases arising from the range of acoustic stimuli presented, and proposed a series of checks that should be made to alert the experimenter to those biases. We then showed that the results of comparisons that survived these checks do not deviate consistently from the predictions of a widely-used cochlear frequency-to-place formula or of a computational cochlear model. We also demonstrate that substantial range effects occur with other widely used experimental methods, even for normal-hearing listeners.
引用
收藏
页码:625 / 640
页数:16
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations [J].
Blamey, PJ ;
Dooley, GJ ;
Parisi, ES ;
Clark, GM .
HEARING RESEARCH, 1996, 99 (1-2) :139-150
[2]   Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing [J].
Boëx, Colette ;
Baud, Lionel ;
Cosendai, Grégoire ;
Sigrist, Alain ;
Kós, Maria-Izabel ;
Pelizzone, Marco .
JARO-JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2006, 7 (02) :110-124
[3]   The consequences of neural degeneration regarding optimal cochlear implant position in scala tympani: A model approach [J].
Briaire, Jeroen J. ;
Frijns, Johan H. M. .
HEARING RESEARCH, 2006, 214 (1-2) :17-27
[4]   Unraveling the electrically evoked compound action potential [J].
Briaire, JJ ;
Frijns, JHM .
HEARING RESEARCH, 2005, 205 (1-2) :143-156
[5]   PLAYED-AGAIN SAM - FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE PITCH OF AMPLITUDE-MODULATED NOISE [J].
BURNS, EM ;
VIEMEISTER, NF .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1981, 70 (06) :1655-1660
[6]   The effects of two temporal cues on pitch judgments [J].
Carlyon, RP .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1997, 102 (02) :1097-1105
[7]   Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing [J].
Carlyon, RP ;
van Wieringen, A ;
Long, CJ ;
Deeks, JM ;
Wouters, J .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2002, 112 (02) :621-633
[8]  
DAUMAN R, 2009, ASS RES OTOLARYNGOL, V32, P154
[9]   An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear [J].
Dorman, Michael F. ;
Spahr, Tony ;
Gifford, Rene ;
Loiselle, Louise ;
McKarns, Sharon ;
Holden, Timothy ;
Skinner, Margaret ;
Finley, Charles .
JARO-JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2007, 8 (02) :234-240
[10]   The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants [J].
Frijns, JHM ;
Briaire, JJ ;
Grote, JJ .
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2001, 22 (03) :340-349