Limits...
Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users.

Cosentino S, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Parkinson W, Bierer JA - J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. (2016)

Bottom Line: There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps.Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other.The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Rd, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK. stefano.cosentino@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Cochlear implant (CI) users have poor temporal pitch perception, as revealed by two key outcomes of rate discrimination tests: (i) rate discrimination thresholds (RDTs) are typically larger than the corresponding frequency difference limen for pure tones in normal hearing listeners, and (ii) above a few hundred pulses per second (i.e. the "upper limit" of pitch), CI users cannot discriminate further increases in pulse rate. Both RDTs at low rates and the upper limit of pitch vary across listeners and across electrodes in a given listener. Here, we compare across-electrode and across-subject variation in these two measures with the variation in performance on another temporal processing task, gap detection, in order to explore the limitations of temporal processing in CI users. RDTs were obtained for 4-5 electrodes in each of 10 Advanced Bionics CI users using two interleaved adaptive tracks, corresponding to standard rates of 100 and 400 pps. Gap detection was measured using the adaptive procedure and stimuli described by Bierer et al. (JARO 16:273-284, 2015), and for the same electrodes and listeners as for the rate discrimination measures. Pitch ranking was also performed using a mid-point comparison technique. There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps. Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other. Estimates of low-rate sensitivity and of the upper limit of pitch, obtained from the pitch ranking experiment, correlated well with rate discrimination for the 100- and 400-pps standards, respectively. The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection. There was no evidence that this limitation also applied to rate discrimination at lower rates.

No MeSH data available.


GDTs measured in 12 subjects. Except for subjects S48 and C6, the data are the same as in Fig. 3 of Bierer et al. (2015). Note the different ordinate scale (in red) for subject S28.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940289&req=5

Fig1: GDTs measured in 12 subjects. Except for subjects S48 and C6, the data are the same as in Fig. 3 of Bierer et al. (2015). Note the different ordinate scale (in red) for subject S28.

Mentions: The results after inclusion of two newly recruited subjects (S48 and C6) are shown in Figure 1. As was reported for the original ten subjects in Bierer et al. (2015), there was no significant across-electrode correlation between gap detection and signal detection tasks (r = 0.24, p = 0.1; df = 37). Although detection thresholds are not plotted here, for reasons of conciseness, it is worth noting that the very high GDT for S28 on electrode 15 did not correspond to an especially high detection threshold (cf. Fig. 1 in Bierer et al. 2015). This finding suggests that gap detection reveals a source of across electrodes variation that is additional to, or different from, that revealed by detection thresholds. The median of the GDTs for all subjects and electrodes tested was 3.7 ms (median absolute deviation of 2.9 ms).FIG. 1


Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users.

Cosentino S, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Parkinson W, Bierer JA - J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. (2016)

GDTs measured in 12 subjects. Except for subjects S48 and C6, the data are the same as in Fig. 3 of Bierer et al. (2015). Note the different ordinate scale (in red) for subject S28.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940289&req=5

Fig1: GDTs measured in 12 subjects. Except for subjects S48 and C6, the data are the same as in Fig. 3 of Bierer et al. (2015). Note the different ordinate scale (in red) for subject S28.
Mentions: The results after inclusion of two newly recruited subjects (S48 and C6) are shown in Figure 1. As was reported for the original ten subjects in Bierer et al. (2015), there was no significant across-electrode correlation between gap detection and signal detection tasks (r = 0.24, p = 0.1; df = 37). Although detection thresholds are not plotted here, for reasons of conciseness, it is worth noting that the very high GDT for S28 on electrode 15 did not correspond to an especially high detection threshold (cf. Fig. 1 in Bierer et al. 2015). This finding suggests that gap detection reveals a source of across electrodes variation that is additional to, or different from, that revealed by detection thresholds. The median of the GDTs for all subjects and electrodes tested was 3.7 ms (median absolute deviation of 2.9 ms).FIG. 1

Bottom Line: There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps.Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other.The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Rd, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, UK. stefano.cosentino@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Cochlear implant (CI) users have poor temporal pitch perception, as revealed by two key outcomes of rate discrimination tests: (i) rate discrimination thresholds (RDTs) are typically larger than the corresponding frequency difference limen for pure tones in normal hearing listeners, and (ii) above a few hundred pulses per second (i.e. the "upper limit" of pitch), CI users cannot discriminate further increases in pulse rate. Both RDTs at low rates and the upper limit of pitch vary across listeners and across electrodes in a given listener. Here, we compare across-electrode and across-subject variation in these two measures with the variation in performance on another temporal processing task, gap detection, in order to explore the limitations of temporal processing in CI users. RDTs were obtained for 4-5 electrodes in each of 10 Advanced Bionics CI users using two interleaved adaptive tracks, corresponding to standard rates of 100 and 400 pps. Gap detection was measured using the adaptive procedure and stimuli described by Bierer et al. (JARO 16:273-284, 2015), and for the same electrodes and listeners as for the rate discrimination measures. Pitch ranking was also performed using a mid-point comparison technique. There was a marginal across-electrode correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400 pps, but neither measure correlated with rate discrimination at 100 pps. Similarly, there was a highly significant across-subject correlation between gap detection and rate discrimination at 400, but not 100 pps, and these two correlations differed significantly from each other. Estimates of low-rate sensitivity and of the upper limit of pitch, obtained from the pitch ranking experiment, correlated well with rate discrimination for the 100- and 400-pps standards, respectively. The results are consistent with the upper limit of rate discrimination sharing a common basis with gap detection. There was no evidence that this limitation also applied to rate discrimination at lower rates.

No MeSH data available.