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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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