Cargando…
Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users
Cochlear implant (CI) users have poor temporal pitch perception, as revealed by two key outcomes of rate discrimination tests: (i) rate discrimination thresholds (RDTs) are typically larger than the corresponding frequency difference limen for pure tones in normal hearing listeners, and (ii) above a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27101997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0569-5 |
_version_ | 1782442121061466112 |
---|---|
author | Cosentino, Stefano Carlyon, Robert P. Deeks, John M. Parkinson, Wendy Bierer, Julie A. |
author_facet | Cosentino, Stefano Carlyon, Robert P. Deeks, John M. Parkinson, Wendy Bierer, Julie A. |
author_sort | Cosentino, Stefano |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cochlear implant (CI) users have poor temporal pitch perception, as revealed by two key outcomes of rate discrimination tests: (i) rate discrimination thresholds (RDTs) are typically larger than the corresponding frequency difference limen for pure tones in normal hearing listeners, and (ii) above a few hundred pulses per second (i.e. the “upper limit” of pitch), CI users cannot discriminate further increases in pulse rate. Both RDTs at low rates and the upper limit of pitch vary across listeners and across electrodes in a given listener. Here, we compare across-electrode and across-subject variation in these two measures with the variation in performance on another temporal processing task, gap detection, in order to explore the limitations of temporal processing in CI users. RDTs were obtained for 4–5 electrodes in each of 10 Advanced Bionics CI users using two interleaved adaptive tracks, corresponding to standard rates of 100 and 400 pps. Gap detection was measured using the adaptive procedure and stimuli described by Bierer et al. (JARO 16:273-284, 2015), and for the same electrodes and listeners as for the rate discrimination measures. Pitch ranking was also performed using a mid-point comparison technique. There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps. Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other. Estimates of low-rate sensitivity and of the upper limit of pitch, obtained from the pitch ranking experiment, correlated well with rate discrimination for the 100- and 400-pps standards, respectively. The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection. There was no evidence that this limitation also applied to rate discrimination at lower rates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4940289 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49402892016-07-21 Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users Cosentino, Stefano Carlyon, Robert P. Deeks, John M. Parkinson, Wendy Bierer, Julie A. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Research Article Cochlear implant (CI) users have poor temporal pitch perception, as revealed by two key outcomes of rate discrimination tests: (i) rate discrimination thresholds (RDTs) are typically larger than the corresponding frequency difference limen for pure tones in normal hearing listeners, and (ii) above a few hundred pulses per second (i.e. the “upper limit” of pitch), CI users cannot discriminate further increases in pulse rate. Both RDTs at low rates and the upper limit of pitch vary across listeners and across electrodes in a given listener. Here, we compare across-electrode and across-subject variation in these two measures with the variation in performance on another temporal processing task, gap detection, in order to explore the limitations of temporal processing in CI users. RDTs were obtained for 4–5 electrodes in each of 10 Advanced Bionics CI users using two interleaved adaptive tracks, corresponding to standard rates of 100 and 400 pps. Gap detection was measured using the adaptive procedure and stimuli described by Bierer et al. (JARO 16:273-284, 2015), and for the same electrodes and listeners as for the rate discrimination measures. Pitch ranking was also performed using a mid-point comparison technique. There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps. Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other. Estimates of low-rate sensitivity and of the upper limit of pitch, obtained from the pitch ranking experiment, correlated well with rate discrimination for the 100- and 400-pps standards, respectively. The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection. There was no evidence that this limitation also applied to rate discrimination at lower rates. Springer US 2016-04-21 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4940289/ /pubmed/27101997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0569-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Cosentino, Stefano Carlyon, Robert P. Deeks, John M. Parkinson, Wendy Bierer, Julie A. Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title | Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title_full | Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title_fullStr | Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title_full_unstemmed | Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title_short | Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
title_sort | rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27101997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0569-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cosentinostefano ratediscriminationgapdetectionandrankingoftemporalpitchincochlearimplantusers AT carlyonrobertp ratediscriminationgapdetectionandrankingoftemporalpitchincochlearimplantusers AT deeksjohnm ratediscriminationgapdetectionandrankingoftemporalpitchincochlearimplantusers AT parkinsonwendy ratediscriminationgapdetectionandrankingoftemporalpitchincochlearimplantusers AT biererjuliea ratediscriminationgapdetectionandrankingoftemporalpitchincochlearimplantusers |