differences in perception of musical stimuli among

15
Sandra Prentiss, PhD, David Friedland, PhD, MD, John Nash, MD, Christina Runge, PhD Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among Acoustic, Electric and Combined Modality Listeners

Upload: others

Post on 27-May-2022

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Sandra Prentiss, PhD, David Friedland, PhD, MD, John Nash, MD, Christina Runge, PhD

Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI

Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among Acoustic, Electric and

Combined Modality Listeners

Page 2: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Disclosures •  Dr. Christina Runge is a research consultant

for MED-EL and Novartis •  Dr. David Friedland is a member of MED-EL

surgical advisory board

Page 3: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Introduction •  Cochlear implants are effective for speech

understanding •  Music perception remains challenging •  Music is rated as the second most important

aspect to hearing next to speech •  Pitch-related tasks and instrument identification

are the most difficult for cochlear implant users

Page 4: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Study Goals

•  Identify differences in music perception among CI users, bimodal users, bilateral hearing aid users and normal hearing controls

Page 5: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Hypothesis

•  Performance will increase as more acoustic information is available

Page 6: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Subjects •  56 adults evenly represented in 4 listening

configurations 1.  Unilateral cochlear implant (CI) 2.  Bimodal listeners – hearing aid on the

contralateral ear (CIHA) 3.  Bilateral hearing aids (HAHA) 4.  Normal hearing listeners (NH)

Page 7: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Subjects •  All implant participants were post-lingually

deafened with at least 6 months of listening experience

•  None of the participants were professionally trained musicians

Page 8: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Methods •  IRB approved •  Mu.S.I.C. – Musical Sound in Cochlear implants software

(Fitzgerald et. al, 2006) •  Chord discrimination

–  Listen to two chords (55 Hz – 1174 Hz) –  Same or different task

•  Instrument identification –  Listen to a C-major scale –  10 instrument forced-choice identification task

Page 9: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Chord Discrimination

Page 10: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Timbre Perception

Page 11: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Results %

Cor

rect

Listening Configuration

Chord Discrimination

CI CIHA HAHA NH0

20

40

60

80

100

120*

**

**

Page 12: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Results

CI CIHA HAHA NH0

20

40

60

80

100

120*

* **

*

Timbre Perception %

Cor

rect

Listening Configuration

Page 13: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Results

CI CIHA HAHA NH0

20

40

60

80

100

120Mean ChordsMean Timbre *

**

Chords and Timbre %

Cor

rect

Listening Configuration

Page 14: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Discussion •  Chord discrimination and timbre

perception are reduced in groups with hearing loss

•  Timbre perception was easiest with normal hearing yet most difficult with electric hearing

Page 15: Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli Among

Discussion •  Further analysis of timbre characteristics

may help identify components of music that are poorly represented in electric hearing

•  May contribute to advancements in programming strategies