Cargando…
Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear
Four cochlear implant users, having normal hearing in the unimplanted ear, compared the pitches of electrical and acoustic stimuli presented to the two ears. Comparisons were between 1,031-pps pulse trains and pure tones or between 12 and 25-pps electric pulse trains and bandpass-filtered acoustic p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20526727 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7 |
_version_ | 1782190965217296384 |
---|---|
author | Carlyon, Robert P. Macherey, Olivier Frijns, Johan H. M. Axon, Patrick R. Kalkman, Randy K. Boyle, Patrick Baguley, David M. Briggs, John Deeks, John M. Briaire, Jeroen J. Barreau, Xavier Dauman, René |
author_facet | Carlyon, Robert P. Macherey, Olivier Frijns, Johan H. M. Axon, Patrick R. Kalkman, Randy K. Boyle, Patrick Baguley, David M. Briggs, John Deeks, John M. Briaire, Jeroen J. Barreau, Xavier Dauman, René |
author_sort | Carlyon, Robert P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Four cochlear implant users, having normal hearing in the unimplanted ear, compared the pitches of electrical and acoustic stimuli presented to the two ears. Comparisons were between 1,031-pps pulse trains and pure tones or between 12 and 25-pps electric pulse trains and bandpass-filtered acoustic pulse trains of the same rate. Three methods—pitch adjustment, constant stimuli, and interleaved adaptive procedures—were used. For all methods, we showed that the results can be strongly influenced by non-sensory biases arising from the range of acoustic stimuli presented, and proposed a series of checks that should be made to alert the experimenter to those biases. We then showed that the results of comparisons that survived these checks do not deviate consistently from the predictions of a widely-used cochlear frequency-to-place formula or of a computational cochlear model. We also demonstrate that substantial range effects occur with other widely used experimental methods, even for normal-hearing listeners. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2975889 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29758892010-11-29 Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear Carlyon, Robert P. Macherey, Olivier Frijns, Johan H. M. Axon, Patrick R. Kalkman, Randy K. Boyle, Patrick Baguley, David M. Briggs, John Deeks, John M. Briaire, Jeroen J. Barreau, Xavier Dauman, René J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Article Four cochlear implant users, having normal hearing in the unimplanted ear, compared the pitches of electrical and acoustic stimuli presented to the two ears. Comparisons were between 1,031-pps pulse trains and pure tones or between 12 and 25-pps electric pulse trains and bandpass-filtered acoustic pulse trains of the same rate. Three methods—pitch adjustment, constant stimuli, and interleaved adaptive procedures—were used. For all methods, we showed that the results can be strongly influenced by non-sensory biases arising from the range of acoustic stimuli presented, and proposed a series of checks that should be made to alert the experimenter to those biases. We then showed that the results of comparisons that survived these checks do not deviate consistently from the predictions of a widely-used cochlear frequency-to-place formula or of a computational cochlear model. We also demonstrate that substantial range effects occur with other widely used experimental methods, even for normal-hearing listeners. Springer-Verlag 2010-06-05 2010-12 /pmc/articles/PMC2975889/ /pubmed/20526727 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Article Carlyon, Robert P. Macherey, Olivier Frijns, Johan H. M. Axon, Patrick R. Kalkman, Randy K. Boyle, Patrick Baguley, David M. Briggs, John Deeks, John M. Briaire, Jeroen J. Barreau, Xavier Dauman, René Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title | Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title_full | Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title_fullStr | Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title_full_unstemmed | Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title_short | Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear |
title_sort | pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20526727 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT carlyonrobertp pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT machereyolivier pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT frijnsjohanhm pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT axonpatrickr pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT kalkmanrandyk pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT boylepatrick pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT baguleydavidm pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT briggsjohn pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT deeksjohnm pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT briairejeroenj pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT barreauxavier pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear AT daumanrene pitchcomparisonsbetweenelectricalstimulationofacochlearimplantandacousticstimulipresentedtoanormalhearingcontralateralear |