1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
oa
Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171
1.
1.ANSI (1960). American Standard Acoustical Terminology. American National Standards Institute, New York.
2.
2.Galvin, J. , Fu, Q.-J. , and Nogaki, G. (2007). “Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners,” Ear Hear. 28(3), 302319.
3.
3.Gfeller, K. , Witt, S. , Woodworth, G. , Mehr, M. , and Knutson, J. (2002a). “Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 111(4), 349356.
4.
4.Gfeller, K. , Witt, S. , Adamek, M. , Mehr, M. , Rogers, J. , Stordahl, J. , and Ringgenberg, S. (2002b). “Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol 13(3), 132145.
5.
5.Geurts, L. , and Wouters, J. (2004). “Better place coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(2), 844852.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1642623
6.
6.Kasturi, K. , and Loizou, P. (2007). “Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, EL29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2749078
7.
7.Kong, Y.-Y. , Cruz, R. , Jones, J. , and Zeng, F.-G. (2004). “Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing,” Ear Hear. 25, 173185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000120365.97792.2F
8.
8.Looi, V. , McDermott, H. , McKay, C. , and Hickson, L. (2008). “Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users,” Ear Hear. (in press).
9.
9.McAdams, S. , Winsberg, S. , Donnadieu, D. , De Soete, G. , and Krimphoff, J. (1995). “Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: Common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes,” Psychol. Res. 58, 177192.
10.
10.McDermott, H. (2004). “Music perception with cochlear implants: A review,” Trends Amplif. 8(2), 4982.
11.
11.Nimmons, G. , Kang, R. , Drennan, W. , Longnion, J. , Ruffin, C. , Worman, T. , Yueh, B. , and Rubinstein, J. (2008). “Clinical assessment of music perception in cochlear implant listeners,” Otol. Neurotol. 29, 149155.
12.
12.Pijl, S. , and Schwarz, D. (1995). “Melody recognition and musical interval perception by deaf subjects stimulated with electrical pulse trains through single cochlear implant electrodes,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 886895.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.413514
13.
13.Poulin-Charronnat, B. , Bigand, E. , Lalitte, P. , Madurell, F. , Vieillard, S. , and McAdams, S. (2004). “Effects of a change in instrumentation on the recognition of musical materials,” Music Percept. 22, 239263.
14.
14.Pressnitzer, D. , Bestel, J. , and Frayssec, B. (2005). “Music to electric ears: Pitch and timbre perception by cochlear implant patients,” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1060, 343345.
15.
15.Smith, Z. , Delgutte, B. , and Oxenham, A. (2002). “Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception,” Nature (London) 416, 8790.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/416087a
16.
16.Vandali, A. , Whitford, L. , Plant, K. , Clark, G. (2000). “Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system,” Ear Hear. 21, 608624.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008
17.
17.Wilson, B. , Finley, C. , Lawson, D. , Wolford, R. , Eddington, D. , and Rabinowitz, W. (1991). “Better speech recognition with cochlear implants,” Nature (London) 352, 236238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/352236a0
18.
18.Wolpert, R. (1990). “Recognition of melody, harmonic accompaniment, and instrumentations: Musicians vs. nonmusicians,” Music Percept. 8, 95106.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171
2008-09-22
2014-09-18

Abstract

Because of interactions between the signal processing and acoustic input, cochlear implant(CI) users’ melodicpitch perception may be influenced by instrument timbre. In the present study, CI listeners’ melodic contour identification was measured for six instruments (organ, glockenspiel, trumpet, clarinet, violin, and piano). While performance was generally best with the organ and poorest with the piano, individual CI subjects exhibited different patterns of results across instruments. CI subjects with the most music experience were less susceptible to timbre effects, suggesting that music training may help less experienced CI users extract melodicpitch from a variety of sound sources.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/1.2961171.html;jsessionid=305jmk0b65a2.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/124/4/10.1121/1.2961171
10.1121/1.2961171
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM