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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Combined neural and behavioural measures of temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant usersa)
1. Ballester, E. B. , Denham, S. , and Meddis, R. (2008). “ A cascade autocorrelation model of pitch perception,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 2186–2197.
2. Carlyon, R. P. (1996). “ Encoding the fundamental frequency of a complex tone in the presence of a spectrally overlapping masker,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 517–524.
4. Carlyon, R. P. , Deeks, J. M. , and McKay, C. M. (2010). “ The upper limit of temporal pitch: Stimulus duration, conditioner pulses, and the number of electrodes stimulated,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 1469–1478.
5. Carlyon, R. P. , Long, C. J. , and Deeks, J. M. (2008a). “ Pulse-rate discrimination by cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners with and without binaural cues,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 2276–2286.
6. Carlyon, R. P. , Long, C. J. , and Micheyl, C. (2012). “ Across-channel timing differences as a potential code for the frequency of pure tones,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 13, 159–171.
7. Carlyon, R. P. , Macherey, O. , Frijns, J. H. M. , Axon, P. R. , Kalkman, R. K. , Boyle, P. , Baguley, D. M. , Briggs, J. , Deeks, J. M. , Briaire, J. J. , Barreau, X. , and Dauman, R. (2011). “ Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 11, 625–640.
8. Carlyon, R. P. , Mahendran, S. , Deeks, J. M. , Long, C. J. , Axon, P. , Baguley, D. , Bleeck, S. , and Winter., I. M. (2008b). “ Behavioral and physiological correlates of temporal pitch perception in electric and acoustic hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 973–985.
9. Carlyon, R. P. , van Wieringen, A. , Long, C. J. , Deeks, J. M. , and Wouters, J. (2002). “ Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 621–633.
11. Haenggeli, A. , Zhang, J. S. , Vischer, M. W. , Pelizzone, M. , and Rouiller, E. M. (1998). “ Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) of the cochlear nerve in response to pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea in the rat: Effects of stimulation at high rates,” Audiology 37, 353–371.
48. Hancock, K. E. , Chung, Y. , and Delgutte, B. (2012). “ Neural ITD coding with bilateral cochlear implants: effect of binaurally coherent jitter,” J. Neurophysiol. 108, 714–728.
12. Hay-McCutcheon, M. J. , Brown, C. J. , and Abbas, P. J. (2005). “ An analysis of the impact of auditory-nerve adaptation on behavioral measures of temporal integration in cochlear implant recipients,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 2444–2457.
13. Heinz, M. G. , Colburn, H. S. , and Carney, L. H. (2001). “ Evaluating auditory performance limits: I. One-parameter discrimination using a computational model for the auditory nerve,” Neural Comput. 13, 2273–2316.
15. Kong, Y.-Y. , and Carlyon, R. P. (2009). “ Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 3114–3123.
16. Kong, Y.-Y. , Deeks, J. M. , Axon, P. R. , and Carlyon, R. P. (2009). “ Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 1649–1657.
17. Landsberger, D. M. , and McKay, C. M. (2005). “ Perceptual differences between low and high rates of stimulation on single electrodes for cochlear implantees,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 319–327.
18. Laneau, J. , Wouters, J. , and Moonen, M. (2006). “ Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants,” Audiol. Neuro-Otol. 11, 38–52.
19. Macherey, O. , Deeks, J. M. , and Carlyon, R. P. (2011). “ Extending the limits of place and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 12, 233–251.
20. McDermott, H. J. , McKay, C. M. , and Vandali, A. E. (1992). “ A new portable sound processor for the University-of-Melbourne nucleus limited multielectrode cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 3367–3371.
21. McKay, C. M. , and Carlyon, R. P. (1999). “ Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 347–357.
23. Micheyl, C. , Bernstein, J. G. W. , and Oxenham, A. J. (2006). “ Detection and F0 discrimination of harmonic complex tones in the presence of competing tones or noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1493–1505.
24. Micheyl, C. , Keebler, M. V. , and Oxenham, A. J. (2010). “ Pitch perception for mixtures of spectrally overlapping harmonic complex tones,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 257–269.
25. Miller, C. A. , Abbas, P. J. , and Robinson, B. K. (2001). “ Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber,” J. Assoc. Otolaryngol. 2, 216–232.
26. Moore, B. C. J. , and Carlyon, R. P. (2005). “ Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users,” in Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: Pitch Perception, edited by C. J. Plack and A. J. Oxenham ( Springer, New York), pp. 234–277.
27. Oxenham, A. J. , Micheyl, C. , Keebler, M. V. , Loper, A. , and Santurette, S. (2011). “ Pitch perception beyond the traditional existence region of pitch,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 7629–7634.
28. Plack, C. J. , and White, L. J. (2000). “ Pitch matches between unresolved complex tones differing by a single interpulse interval,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 696–705.
29. Pressnitzer, D. , de Cheveigne, A. , and Winter, I. M. (2004). “ Physiological correlates of the perceptual pitch shift for sounds with similar waveform autocorrelation,” Acoust. Res. Lett. Online 5, 1–6.
30. Riss, D. , Arnoldner, C. , Baumgartner, W. D. , Kaider, A. , and Hamzavi, J. S. (2008). “ A new fine structure speech coding strategy: Speech perception at a reduced number of channels,” Otol. Neurotol. 29, 784–788.
31. Rubinstein, J. T. , Wilson, B. S. , Finley, C. C. , and Abbas, P. J. (1999). “ Pseudospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation,” Hear. Res. 127, 108–118.
32. Shamma, S. (1985). “ Speech processing in the auditory system: II. Lateral inhibition and the central processing of speech evoked activity in the auditory nerve,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 78, 1622–1632.
35.SPSS. (2012). “ IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.”
36. Tong, Y. C. , Blamey, P. J. , Dowell, R. C. , and Clark, G. M. (1983). “ Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 73–80.
37. Townshend, B. , Cotter, N. , van Compernolle, D. , and White, R. L. (1987). “ Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 106–115.
38. Vandali, A. E. , Sucher, C. , Tsang, D. J. , McKay, C. M. , Chew, J. W. D. , and McDermott, H. J. (2005). “ Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: A comparison of sound-processing strategies,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 3126–3138.
40. van Hoesel, R. J. M. , and Clark, G. M. (1997). “ Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 495–507.
41. van Wieringen, A. , Carlyon, R. P. , Long, C. J. , and Wouters, J. (2003). “ Pitch of amplitude-modulated irregular-rate stimuli in electric and acoustic hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 1516–1528.
42. Venter, P. J. , and Hanekom, J. J. (2014). “ Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 15, 849–866.
43. Wang, J. , Baer, T. , Glasberg, B. R. , Stone, M. A. , Ye, D. , and Moore, B. C. J. (2012). “ Pitch perception of concurrent harmonic tones with overlapping spectra,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 339–356.
44. Wilson, B. S. , Finley, C. C. , Lawson, D. T. , Wolford, R. D. , Eddington, D. K. , and Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). “ Better speech recognition with cochlear implants,” Nature 352, 236–238.
Article metrics loading...
Four experiments measured the perceptual and neural correlates of the temporal pattern of electrical stimulation applied to one cochlear-implant
electrode, for several subjects. Neural effects were estimated from the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) to each pulse. Experiment 1 attenuated every second pulse of a 200-pps pulse train. Increasing attenuation caused pitch to drop and the ECAP to become amplitude modulated, thereby providing an estimate of the relationship between neural modulation and pitch. Experiment 2 showed that the pitch of a 200-pps pulse train can be reduced by delaying every second pulse, so that the inter-pulse-intervals alternate between longer and shorter intervals. This caused the ECAP to become amplitude modulated, but not by enough to account for the change in pitch. Experiment 3 replicated the finding that rate discrimination deteriorates with increases in baseline rate. This was accompanied by an increase in ECAP modulation, but by an amount that produced only a small effect on pitch in experiment 1. Experiment 4 showed that preceding a pulse train with a carefully selected “pre-pulse” could reduce ECAP modulation, but did not improve rate discrimination. Implications for theories of pitch and for limitations of pitch perception in CI users are discussed.
Full text loading...
Most read this month