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.
Effect of a competing instrument on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users
2.Galvin, J. , Fu, Q.-J. , and Oba, S. (2008). “Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, EL189–EL195.
3.Geurts, L. , and Wouters, J. (2004). “Better place coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 844–852.
4.Gfeller, K. , Witt, S. , Adamek, M. , Mehr, M. , Rogers, J. , Stordahl, J. , and Ringgenberg, S. (2002). “Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol 13, 132–145.
7.Stickney, G. , Assmann, P. , Chang, J. , and Zeng, F.-G. (2007). “Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1069–1078.
8.Vandali, A. E. , Whitford, L. A. , Plant, K. L. , and Clark, G. M. (2000). “Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system,” Ear Hear. 21, 608–624.
Article metrics loading...
Cochlear implant (CI) users have limited access to fundamental frequency (F0) and timbre cues, which are needed to segregate competing voices and/or musical instruments. In the present study, CI users’ melodic contour identification was measured for three target instruments in the presence of a masker instrument; the F0 of the masker was varied relative to the target instruments. Mean CI performance significantly declined in the presence of the masker, while mean normal-hearing performance was largely unaffected. However, the most musically experienced CI users were able to make use of timbre and F0 differences between instruments.
Full text loading...
Most read this month