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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2010-12, Vol.11 (4), p.625-640 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |