Cargando…

Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type

Previous studies in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) have reported results of pitch comparisons between electric stimulation of their cochlear implant (CI) and acoustic stimulation presented to their near-normal hearing contralateral ear. These comparisons typically used sinusoids, although...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adel, Youssef, Nagel, Sharon, Weissgerber, Tobias, Baumann, Uwe, Macherey, Olivier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31736684
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01119
_version_ 1783467411952893952
author Adel, Youssef
Nagel, Sharon
Weissgerber, Tobias
Baumann, Uwe
Macherey, Olivier
author_facet Adel, Youssef
Nagel, Sharon
Weissgerber, Tobias
Baumann, Uwe
Macherey, Olivier
author_sort Adel, Youssef
collection PubMed
description Previous studies in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) have reported results of pitch comparisons between electric stimulation of their cochlear implant (CI) and acoustic stimulation presented to their near-normal hearing contralateral ear. These comparisons typically used sinusoids, although the percept elicited by electric stimulation may be closer to a wideband stimulus. Furthermore, it has been shown that pitch comparisons between sounds with different timbres is a difficult task and subjected to various types of range biases. The present study aims to introduce a method to minimize non-sensory biases, and to investigate the effect of different acoustic stimulus types on the frequency and variability of the electric-acoustic pitch matches. Pitch matches were collected from 13 CI users with SSD using the binary search procedure. Electric stimulation was presented at either an apical or a middle electrode position, at a rate of 800 pps. Acoustic stimulus types were sinusoids (SINE), 1/3-octave wide narrow bands of Gaussian noises (NBN), or 1/3-octave wide pulse spreading harmonic complexes (PSHC). On the one hand, NBN and PSHC are presumed to better mimic the spread of excitation produced by a single-electrode stimulation than SINE. On the other hand, SINE and PSHC contain less inherent fluctuations than NBN and may therefore provide a temporal pattern closer to that produced by a constant-amplitude electric pulse train. Analysis of mean pitch match variance showed no differences between stimulus types. However, mean pitch matches showed effects of electrode position and stimulus type, with the middle electrode always matched to a higher frequency than the apical one (p < 0.001), and significantly higher across-subject pitch matches for PSHC compared with SINE (p = 0.017). Mean pitch matches for all stimulus types were better predicted by place-dependent characteristic frequencies (CFs) based on an organ of Corti map compared with a spiral ganglion map. CF predictions were closest to pitch matches with SINE for the apical electrode position, and conversely with NBN or PSHC for the middle electrode position. These results provide evidence that the choice of acoustic stimulus type can have a significant effect on electric-acoustic pitch matching.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6839387
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68393872019-11-15 Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type Adel, Youssef Nagel, Sharon Weissgerber, Tobias Baumann, Uwe Macherey, Olivier Front Neurosci Neuroscience Previous studies in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) have reported results of pitch comparisons between electric stimulation of their cochlear implant (CI) and acoustic stimulation presented to their near-normal hearing contralateral ear. These comparisons typically used sinusoids, although the percept elicited by electric stimulation may be closer to a wideband stimulus. Furthermore, it has been shown that pitch comparisons between sounds with different timbres is a difficult task and subjected to various types of range biases. The present study aims to introduce a method to minimize non-sensory biases, and to investigate the effect of different acoustic stimulus types on the frequency and variability of the electric-acoustic pitch matches. Pitch matches were collected from 13 CI users with SSD using the binary search procedure. Electric stimulation was presented at either an apical or a middle electrode position, at a rate of 800 pps. Acoustic stimulus types were sinusoids (SINE), 1/3-octave wide narrow bands of Gaussian noises (NBN), or 1/3-octave wide pulse spreading harmonic complexes (PSHC). On the one hand, NBN and PSHC are presumed to better mimic the spread of excitation produced by a single-electrode stimulation than SINE. On the other hand, SINE and PSHC contain less inherent fluctuations than NBN and may therefore provide a temporal pattern closer to that produced by a constant-amplitude electric pulse train. Analysis of mean pitch match variance showed no differences between stimulus types. However, mean pitch matches showed effects of electrode position and stimulus type, with the middle electrode always matched to a higher frequency than the apical one (p < 0.001), and significantly higher across-subject pitch matches for PSHC compared with SINE (p = 0.017). Mean pitch matches for all stimulus types were better predicted by place-dependent characteristic frequencies (CFs) based on an organ of Corti map compared with a spiral ganglion map. CF predictions were closest to pitch matches with SINE for the apical electrode position, and conversely with NBN or PSHC for the middle electrode position. These results provide evidence that the choice of acoustic stimulus type can have a significant effect on electric-acoustic pitch matching. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6839387/ /pubmed/31736684 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01119 Text en Copyright © 2019 Adel, Nagel, Weissgerber, Baumann and Macherey. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Adel, Youssef
Nagel, Sharon
Weissgerber, Tobias
Baumann, Uwe
Macherey, Olivier
Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title_full Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title_fullStr Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title_full_unstemmed Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title_short Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type
title_sort pitch matching in cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness: effects of electrode position and acoustic stimulus type
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31736684
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01119
work_keys_str_mv AT adelyoussef pitchmatchingincochlearimplantuserswithsinglesideddeafnesseffectsofelectrodepositionandacousticstimulustype
AT nagelsharon pitchmatchingincochlearimplantuserswithsinglesideddeafnesseffectsofelectrodepositionandacousticstimulustype
AT weissgerbertobias pitchmatchingincochlearimplantuserswithsinglesideddeafnesseffectsofelectrodepositionandacousticstimulustype
AT baumannuwe pitchmatchingincochlearimplantuserswithsinglesideddeafnesseffectsofelectrodepositionandacousticstimulustype
AT machereyolivier pitchmatchingincochlearimplantuserswithsinglesideddeafnesseffectsofelectrodepositionandacousticstimulustype