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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cosentino, Stefano, Carlyon, Robert P., Deeks, John M., Parkinson, Wendy, Bierer, Julie A.
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