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.


Scatter plot between normalised RDR400 and GDT as measured across electrodes.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940289&req=5

Fig4: Scatter plot between normalised RDR400 and GDT as measured across electrodes.

Mentions: No significant across-electrode correlations were observed between RDR100 and either the GDT (r = 0.03; df = 30, p = 0.9) nor RDR400 (r = − 0.12; df = 30, p = 0.5). A marginally significant correlation was, however, measured between RDR400 and GDT (r = 0.33; df = 30, p = 0.06), as shown in the scatter plot of Figure 4. As discussed below, this general pattern of results was also obtained with the across-subject correlations.FIG. 4


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)

Scatter plot between normalised RDR400 and GDT as measured across electrodes.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig4: Scatter plot between normalised RDR400 and GDT as measured across electrodes.
Mentions: No significant across-electrode correlations were observed between RDR100 and either the GDT (r = 0.03; df = 30, p = 0.9) nor RDR400 (r = − 0.12; df = 30, p = 0.5). A marginally significant correlation was, however, measured between RDR400 and GDT (r = 0.33; df = 30, p = 0.06), as shown in the scatter plot of Figure 4. As discussed below, this general pattern of results was also obtained with the across-subject correlations.FIG. 4

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.