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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2010-12, Vol.11 (4), p.625-640
Hauptverfasser: 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
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 640
container_issue 4
container_start_page 625
container_title Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
container_volume 11
creator 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
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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2975889</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>954623114</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-b25eab7d3e3ac0ff9400d41cec44b91e2f3a54550bd612b54cac2352456eb1de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFksGK1TAUhosozjj6AG4kuBEX1ZOkadqNcLlcnYGLDqjrkKan0wxtU5N0xGfwpc2111EHxE0Sku__Tzjnz7KnFF5RAPk6UKAly4FCDoyxXN7LTmnBq1wKye-ns2Ai53VJT7JHIVwDUCnK-mF2wkCwUjJ5mn2_tNH0ZOvGWXsb3BRIg_Er4kR2A5rordED-RjtuAw6WjcR1xGdeNMPqD25GOdBT5HoqSUb45YQrTnillx6DDhFbEl0SfTe-VEPeZ90drpKHlP0OrliWslO-8fZg04PAZ8c97Ps89vdp-15vv_w7mK72edG8CLmDROoG9ly5NpA19UFQFtQg6Yompoi67gWhRDQtCVljSiMNowLVogSG9oiP8verL7z0ozYGvz5DzV7O2r_TTlt1d8vk-3VlbtRrJaiqupk8HI16O_Izjd7dbgDqEEAFzc0sS-Oxbz7smCIarTB4JC6hqldqhZFyThNY_sfKUvORJXGmcjnd8hrt_gp9UxVIAWUXLIE0RUy3oXgsbv9KQV1iI9a46NSfNQhPkomzbM_O3Or-JWXBLAVCPNhhuh_V_636w9v8tG6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>807506372</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-3961</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-7573</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20526727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation ; Acoustics ; Adult ; Bias ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Cochlea ; Cochlea - physiology ; Cochlear Implants ; Computer Simulation ; Ear ; Ear - physiology ; Electric Stimulation ; Engineering Sciences ; Humans ; Life Sciences ; Mechanics ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neurobiology ; Neurons and Cognition ; Neurosciences ; Otorhinolaryngology ; Physics ; Pitch Perception ; Pitch Perception - physiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 2010-12, Vol.11 (4), p.625-640</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2010</rights><rights>Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2010</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-b25eab7d3e3ac0ff9400d41cec44b91e2f3a54550bd612b54cac2352456eb1de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-b25eab7d3e3ac0ff9400d41cec44b91e2f3a54550bd612b54cac2352456eb1de3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975889/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975889/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20526727$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-00905035$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carlyon, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macherey, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frijns, Johan H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Axon, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalkman, Randy K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baguley, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briggs, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deeks, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briaire, Jeroen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barreau, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dauman, René</creatorcontrib><title>Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear</title><title>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology</title><addtitle>JARO</addtitle><addtitle>J Assoc Res Otolaryngol</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation</subject><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bias (Epidemiology)</subject><subject>Cochlea</subject><subject>Cochlea - physiology</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Ear</subject><subject>Ear - physiology</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation</subject><subject>Engineering Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Mechanics</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neurobiology</subject><subject>Neurons and Cognition</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Pitch Perception</subject><subject>Pitch Perception - physiology</subject><issn>1525-3961</issn><issn>1438-7573</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFksGK1TAUhosozjj6AG4kuBEX1ZOkadqNcLlcnYGLDqjrkKan0wxtU5N0xGfwpc2111EHxE0Sku__Tzjnz7KnFF5RAPk6UKAly4FCDoyxXN7LTmnBq1wKye-ns2Ai53VJT7JHIVwDUCnK-mF2wkCwUjJ5mn2_tNH0ZOvGWXsb3BRIg_Er4kR2A5rordED-RjtuAw6WjcR1xGdeNMPqD25GOdBT5HoqSUb45YQrTnillx6DDhFbEl0SfTe-VEPeZ90drpKHlP0OrliWslO-8fZg04PAZ8c97Ps89vdp-15vv_w7mK72edG8CLmDROoG9ly5NpA19UFQFtQg6Yompoi67gWhRDQtCVljSiMNowLVogSG9oiP8verL7z0ozYGvz5DzV7O2r_TTlt1d8vk-3VlbtRrJaiqupk8HI16O_Izjd7dbgDqEEAFzc0sS-Oxbz7smCIarTB4JC6hqldqhZFyThNY_sfKUvORJXGmcjnd8hrt_gp9UxVIAWUXLIE0RUy3oXgsbv9KQV1iI9a46NSfNQhPkomzbM_O3Or-JWXBLAVCPNhhuh_V_636w9v8tG6</recordid><startdate>20101201</startdate><enddate>20101201</enddate><creator>Carlyon, Robert P.</creator><creator>Macherey, Olivier</creator><creator>Frijns, Johan H. M.</creator><creator>Axon, Patrick R.</creator><creator>Kalkman, Randy K.</creator><creator>Boyle, Patrick</creator><creator>Baguley, David M.</creator><creator>Briggs, John</creator><creator>Deeks, John M.</creator><creator>Briaire, Jeroen J.</creator><creator>Barreau, Xavier</creator><creator>Dauman, René</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer Verlag</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101201</creationdate><title>Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear</title><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></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-b25eab7d3e3ac0ff9400d41cec44b91e2f3a54550bd612b54cac2352456eb1de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation</topic><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bias (Epidemiology)</topic><topic>Cochlea</topic><topic>Cochlea - physiology</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Ear</topic><topic>Ear - physiology</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation</topic><topic>Engineering Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Mechanics</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neurobiology</topic><topic>Neurons and Cognition</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Pitch Perception</topic><topic>Pitch Perception - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carlyon, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macherey, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frijns, Johan H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Axon, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalkman, Randy K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baguley, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briggs, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deeks, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briaire, Jeroen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barreau, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dauman, René</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carlyon, Robert P.</au><au>Macherey, Olivier</au><au>Frijns, Johan H. M.</au><au>Axon, Patrick R.</au><au>Kalkman, Randy K.</au><au>Boyle, Patrick</au><au>Baguley, David M.</au><au>Briggs, John</au><au>Deeks, John M.</au><au>Briaire, Jeroen J.</au><au>Barreau, Xavier</au><au>Dauman, René</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology</jtitle><stitle>JARO</stitle><addtitle>J Assoc Res Otolaryngol</addtitle><date>2010-12-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>625</spage><epage>640</epage><pages>625-640</pages><issn>1525-3961</issn><eissn>1438-7573</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20526727</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1525-3961
ispartof Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 2010-12, Vol.11 (4), p.625-640
issn 1525-3961
1438-7573
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2975889
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Acoustic Stimulation
Acoustics
Adult
Bias
Bias (Epidemiology)
Cochlea
Cochlea - physiology
Cochlear Implants
Computer Simulation
Ear
Ear - physiology
Electric Stimulation
Engineering Sciences
Humans
Life Sciences
Mechanics
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Neurobiology
Neurons and Cognition
Neurosciences
Otorhinolaryngology
Physics
Pitch Perception
Pitch Perception - physiology
title Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T08%3A50%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pitch%20Comparisons%20between%20Electrical%20Stimulation%20of%20a%20Cochlear%20Implant%20and%20Acoustic%20Stimuli%20Presented%20to%20a%20Normal-hearing%20Contralateral%20Ear&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20Association%20for%20Research%20in%20Otolaryngology&rft.au=Carlyon,%20Robert%20P.&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=625&rft.epage=640&rft.pages=625-640&rft.issn=1525-3961&rft.eissn=1438-7573&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10162-010-0222-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E954623114%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=807506372&rft_id=info:pmid/20526727&rfr_iscdi=true