Perception of Rhythmic and Sequential Pitch Patterns by Normally Hearing Adults and Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Objective: This study compares the musical perception of 17 adult recipients of the Nucleus cochlear implant using two different format extraction processing strategies (F0F1F2 and MPEAK). Design: Over a 12 mo period, participants were alternately switched between two strategies every 3 mo. Performance was evaluated using three measures of rhythmic and sequential pitch perception. Results: Three individuals performed significantly better with the MPEAK strategy on one particular rhythm task, 11 participants performed better with the MPEAK strategy on another rhythm task, and no significant differences were found between the two strategies on a sequential pitch pattern task. Conclusions: Neither strategy seems clearly superior for perception of either sequential pitch or rhythmic patterns.

[1]  H. Damasio,et al.  Auditory perception of temporal and spectral events in patients with focal left and right cerebral lesions , 1990, Brain and Language.

[2]  J. F. Corso,et al.  Sensory processes and age effects in normal adults. , 1971, Journal of gerontology.

[3]  S Handel,et al.  The meter of syncopated auditory polyrhythms , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  G. Woodworth,et al.  A within-subject comparison of adult patients using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  M F Dorman,et al.  Pitch scaling and speech understanding by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[8]  D. Robin,et al.  Auditory temporal pattern learning in children with speech and language impairments , 1989, Brain and Language.

[9]  G. Clark,et al.  Acoustic parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[11]  D. Robin,et al.  Age-related changes in auditory temporal processing. , 1985, Psychology and aging.

[12]  M. Skinner,et al.  Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Sb. Waltzman,et al.  An experimental comparison of cochlear implant systems , 1992 .

[14]  Dirk Van Compernolle,et al.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.