Music Perception by Cochlear Implant and Normal Hearing Listeners as Measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the utility/possibility of using the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) test (Peretz, et al., Ann N Y Acad Sci, 999, 58–75) to assess the music perception abilities of cochlear implant (CI) users. Design: The MBEA was used to measure six different aspects of music perception (Scale, Contour, Interval, Rhythm, Meter, and Melody Memory) by CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners presented with stimuli processed via CI simulations. The spectral resolution (number of channels) was varied in the CI simulations to determine: (a) the number of channels (4, 6, 8, 12, and 16) needed to achieve the highest levels of music perception and (b) the number of channels needed to produce levels of music perception performance comparable with that of CI users. Results: CI users and NH listeners performed higher on temporal-based tests (Rhythm and Meter) than on pitch-based tests (Scale, Contour, and Interval)—a finding that is consistent with previous research studies. The CI users’ scores on pitch-based tests were near chance. The CI users’ (but not NH listeners’) scores for the Memory test, a test that incorporates an integration of both temporal-based and pitch-based aspects of music, were significantly higher than the scores obtained for the pitch-based Scale test and significantly lower than the temporal-based Rhythm and Meter tests. The data from NH listeners indicated that 16 channels of stimulation did not provide the highest music perception scores and performance was as good as that obtained with 12 channels. This outcome is consistent with other studies showing that NH listeners listening to vocoded speech are not able to use effectively F0 cues present in the envelopes, even when the stimuli are processed with a large number (16) of channels. The CI user data seem to most closely match with the 4- and 6-channel NH listener conditions for the pitch-based tasks. Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, both CI users and NH listeners showed the typical pattern of music perception in which scores are higher on tests measuring the perception of temporal aspects of music (Rhythm and Meter) than spectral (pitch) aspects of music (Scale, Contour, and Interval). On that regard, the pattern of results from this study indicates that the MBEA is a suitable test for measuring various aspects of music perception by CI users.

[1]  M. Bassim,et al.  MED‐EL Combi40+ Cochlear Implantation in Adults , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[2]  J. Ito,et al.  Ability of Nucleus Cochlear Implantees to Recognize Music , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[3]  S. Pijl Labeling of Musical Interval Size by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normally Hearing Subjects , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  G Woodworth,et al.  Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Knutson,et al.  Effects of Frequency, Instrumental Family, and Cochlear Implant Type on Timbre Recognition and Appraisal , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[9]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of Envelope-Vocoder Processing on F0 Discrimination and Concurrent-Vowel Identification , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[10]  L. Hood,et al.  The Maryland CNC Test: normative studies. , 1984, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[11]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[12]  Bernard Fraysse,et al.  Music Perception in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  G Woodworth,et al.  Perception of Rhythmic and Sequential Pitch Patterns by Normally Hearing Adults and Adult Cochlear Implant Users , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Hugh J. McDermott Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[15]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Modularity of music processing , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[17]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[18]  C. Lansing,et al.  Musical Perception of Cochlear Implant Users as Measured by the Primary Measures of Music Audiation: An Item Analysis , 1992 .

[19]  C R Lansing,et al.  Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  I. Peretz,et al.  Varieties of Musical Disorders , 2003, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[21]  K. Gfeller,et al.  Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  Robert Alexander Fearn,et al.  MUSIC AND PITCH PERCEPTION OF COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS , 2001 .

[23]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Music Perception with Temporal Cues in Acoustic and Electric Hearing , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[24]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Melodic Contour Identification by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[27]  H J McDermott,et al.  Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  D W Schwarz,et al.  Melody recognition and musical interval perception by deaf subjects stimulated with electrical pulse trains through single cochlear implant electrodes. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  J. Knutson,et al.  Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults , 2002, Cochlear implants international.

[30]  Intonation of musical intervals by musical intervals by deaf subjects stimulated with single bipolar cochlear implant electrodes , 1995, Hearing Research.

[31]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.