Impaired Perception of Sensory Consonance and Dissonance in Cochlear Implant Users

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith T. Caldwell ◽  
Patpong Jiradejvong ◽  
Charles J. Limb
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sensory Consonance ◽  
Consonance And Dissonance

Neural correlates of sensory consonance and dissonance in primate primary auditory cortex.

2010 ◽  
Vol 127 (3) ◽  
pp. 1951-1951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell Steinschneider ◽  
Yonatan I. Fishman
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Cortex ◽  
Primary Auditory Cortex ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Sensory Consonance ◽  
Consonance And Dissonance

Functional MRI/Event-related potential study of sensory consonance and dissonance in musicians and nonmusicians

Neuroreport ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludovico Minati ◽  
Cristina Rosazza ◽  
Ludovico DʼIncerti ◽  
Emanuela Pietrocini ◽  
Laura Valentini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Mri ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Potential Study ◽  
Sensory Consonance ◽  
Consonance And Dissonance

Preference for Sensory Consonance in 2- and 4-Month-Old Infants

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurel J. Trainor ◽  
Christine D. Tsang ◽  
Vivian H. W. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Inner Ear ◽  
Auditory Nerve ◽  
Time Preference ◽  
Scale Structure ◽  
Pitch Structure ◽  
Sensory Consonance ◽  
Firing Characteristics ◽  
Consonance And Dissonance

The preferences of 2- and 4-month-old infants for consonant versus dissonant two-tone intervals was tested by using a looking-time preference procedure. Infants of both ages preferred to listen to consonant over dissonant intervals and found it difficult to recover interest after a sequence of dissonant trials. Thus, sensitivity to consonance and dissonance is found before knowledge of scale structure and may be based on the innate structure of the inner ear and the firing characteristics of the auditory nerve. It is likely that consonance perception provides a bootstrap into the task of learning the pitch structure of the musical system to which the infant is exposed.

Comparison of the Normal and Noise-Suppression Settings on the Spectra 22 Speech Processor of the Nucleus TM 22-Channel Cochlear Implant System

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura K. Holden ◽  
Margaret W. Skinner ◽  
Timothy A. Holden
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Noise Suppression ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Implant System

Letter to the Editor Concerning Skuk et al., “Parameter-Specific Morphing Reveals Contributions of Timbre and Fundamental Frequency Cues to the Perception of Voice Gender and Age in Cochlear Implant Users”

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4325-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Katrin Fuersen ◽  
Barbara Streicher ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth ◽  
Martin Walger
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Stimulus Type ◽  
Voice Perception ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
General Influence

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to compare results by Skuk et al. (2020) with Meister et al. (2016) and to point to a potential general influence of stimulus type. Conclusion Our conclusion is that presenting sentences may give cochlear implant recipients the opportunity to use timbre cues for voice perception. This might not be the case when presenting brief and sparse stimuli such as consonant–vowel–consonant or single words, which were applied in the majority of studies.

Perceptual Learning of Vocoded Speech With and Without Contralateral Hearing: Implications for Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Speech Signal ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Vocoded Speech

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.

Therapeutic Issues and Adolescent Cochlear Implant Recipients

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Chute ◽  
Helen C. Buhler
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant

Navigating the Thicket of Billing for Cochlear Implant Services

ASHA Leader ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Lisa Satterfield ◽  
Neela Swanson
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant

Family Wins Cochlear Implant Insurance Victory

ASHA Leader ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 4-13
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document