Music Perception with Cochlear Implants and Residual Hearing

Aim: The aims of this study were to examine the music perception abilities of Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid (acoustic plus electric stimulation) cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to compare their performance with that of normal-hearing (NH) adults and CI recipients using conventional long-electrode (LE) devices (Advanced Bionics: 90K, Clarion, CIIHF; Cochlear Corporation: CI24M, CI22, Contour; Ineraid). Hybrid CI recipients were compared with NH adults and LE CI recipients on recognition of (a) real-world melodies and (b) musical instruments. Patients and Methods: We tested 4 Hybrid CI recipients, 17 NH adults, and 39 LE CI recipients on open-set recognition of real-world songs presented with and without lyrics. We also tested 14 Hybrid CI recipients, 21 NH adults, and 174 LE CI recipients on closed-set recognition of 8 musical instruments playing a 7-note phrase. Results: On recognition of real-world songs, both the Hybrid recipients and NH listeners were significantly more accurate (p < 0.0001) than the LE CI recipients in the no lyrics condition, which required reliance on musical cues only. The LE group was significantly less accurate than either the Hybrid or NH group (p < 0.0001) on instrument recognition for low and high frequency ranges. Conclusions: These results, while preliminary in nature, suggest that preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing is important for perception of real-world musical stimuli.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  F. Telischi,et al.  Chapter 79 – Cochlear Implant Technology , 2005 .

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

[7]  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.

[8]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  J. W. Heller,et al.  Cochlear implant technology , 1996, Proceedings of 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[11]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  N. Dillier Combining Cochlear Implants and Hearing Instruments , 2005 .

[13]  Shelley Witt,et al.  Recognition of “Real-World” Musical Excerpts by Cochlear Implant Recipients and Normal-Hearing Adults , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Gnau Fb,et al.  Cochlear implant. , 1985, ASHA.

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