A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation

References

• Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D. . 2007. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: Preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 127, 1298–1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper W.B., Tobey E., Loizou P.C. 2008. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia. Ear Hear, 29, 618–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach L.J. 1946. Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach L.J. 1950. Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Basham K., McCandless G., Dove H. 1991. Speech understanding and music appreciation with the Ineraid cochlear implant. Hearing Journal, 44, 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Dowell R.C., Seligman P.M., Blamey P.J., Clark G.M. 1987. Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 104, 439–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdenebat D., Kitazawa S., Iwasaki S. 2004. Comparison of two signal processing strategies using consonant recognition tests. Cochlear Implants Int, 5, 38–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Filipo R., Ballantyne D., Mancini P., D'elia C. 2008. Music perception in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of findings between HiRes90 and HiRes120. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 128, 378–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firszt J.B., Holden L.K., Reeder R.M., Skinner M.W. 2009. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol, 30, 146–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein M.F., Luria R. 1973. Reliability, validity, and clinical application of the visual analogue mood scale. Psychol Med, 3, 479–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V. 2002. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 23, 339–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita S., Ito J. 1999. Ability of Nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 108, 634–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Asmus E., Eckert M. 1991. An investigation of emotional response to music and text. Psych Music, 19, 128–141.
   Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J., Witt S., Mehr M. 2003. The effects of familiarity and complexity on appraisal of complex songs by cochlear implant recipients and normal hearing adults. J Music Ther, 40, 78–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Murray K.T. . 2000. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 390–406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller K., Knutson J. 2003. Music to the impaired or implanted ear. American Speech and Hearing Association Leader, 8, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Knutson J.F., Woodworth G., Witt S., DeBus B. 1998a. Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 9, 1–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller K., Oleson J., Knutson J.F., Breheny P., Driscoll V. . 2008. Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 120–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Olszewski C., Rychener M., Sena K., Knutson J.F. . 2005. Recognition of ‘real-world’ musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Ear Hear, 26, 237–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Turner C., Mehr M., Woodworth G., Fearn R. . 2002a. Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int, 3, 29–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller K., Witt S., Mehr M.A., Woodworth G., Knutson J. 2002b. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 111, 349–356.
   Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Witt S.A., Spencer L.J., Stordahl J., Tomblin B. 1998b. Musical involvement and enjoyment of children who use cochlear implants. Volta Review, 100, 213–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heise D.R. 1969. Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychol Bull, 72, 406–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins K., Moore B.C.J., Stone M.A. 2008. Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1140–1153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasturi K., Loizou P.C. 2007. Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, EL29–EL34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J., Hohl S., Stürzebecher E., Pfennigdorff T., Gstöettner W.K.. 2001. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology, 40, 32–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kompis M., Vischer M.W., Häusler R. 1999. Performance of compressed analogue (CA) and continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) coding strategies for cochlear implants in quiet and noise. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 119, 659–664.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kong Y.Y., Cruz R., Jones J.A., Zeng F.G. 2004. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear, 25, 173–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong Y.Y., Deeks J.M., Axon P.R., Carlyon R.P. 2009. Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 1649–1657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong Y.Y., Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G. 2005. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 1351–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krenmayr A., Schatzer R., Kals M., Gründhammer T., Zierhofer C. 2009a. Visualising fine structure speech coding strategies. 7th Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implants and Related Sciences, Singapore. 1–4 Dec, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Krenmayr A., Schatzer R., Kals M., Visser D., Vermeire K. . 2009b. Effects of fine structure stimulation on pitch perception. 7th Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implants and Related Sciences, Singapore. 1–4 Dec, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Lassaletta L., Castro A., Bastarrica M., Pérez-Mora R., Herrán B. . 2008a. Changes in listening habits and quality of musical sound after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 138, 363–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassaletta L., Castro A., Bastarrica M., Pérez-Mora R., Herrán B. . 2008b. Musical perception and enjoyment in post-lingual patients with cochlear implants. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp, 59, 228–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lassaletta L., Castro A., Bastarrica M., Pérez-Mora R., Madero R. . 2007. Does music perception have an impact on quality of life following cochlear implantation? Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 127, 682–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laukka P. 2007. Uses of music and psychological well-being among the elderly. J Happiness Stud, 8(2), 215–241.
   Google Scholar
• Leal M.C., Shin Y.J., Laborde M.L., Calmels M.N., Verges S. . 2003. Music perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 123, 826–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leblanc A. 1982. An interactive theory of music preference. J Mus Ther, 19(1), 28–45.
   Google Scholar
• Loizou P.C., Stickney G., Mishra L., Assmann P. 2003. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear, 24, 12–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Looi V. 2008. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception: A review. Otorinolaringologia, 58, 169–190.
   Google Scholar
• Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C., Hickson L. 2004. Pitch discrimination and melody recognition by cochlear implant users. International Congress Series, 1273C, 197–200.
   Google Scholar
• Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C., Hickson L. 2007. Comparisons of quality ratings for music by cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 28, 59S–61S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Looi V., She J.H.K. 2010. Music perception of cochlear implant users: A questionnaire, and its implications for a music training program. Int J Audiol, 49, 116–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Looi V., Sucher C., McDermott H. 2003. Melodies familiar to the Australian population across a range of hearing abilities. Aust NZ J Audiol, 25, 75–83.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott H.J. 2004. Music perception with cochlear implants: A review. Trends Amplif, 8, 49–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Milczynski M., Wouters J., van Wieringen A. 2009. Improved fundamental frequency coding in cochlear implant signal processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2260–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirza S., Douglas S.A., Lindsey P., Hildreth T., Hawthorne M. 2003. Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: A patient questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int, 4, 85–95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2008. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 9, 399–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J., Carlyon R.P. 2005. Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. In: C.J. Plack, A.J. Oxenham, A.N. Popper, R. Fay Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception. New York: Springer, 234–277.
   Google Scholar
• O'Beirne G. 2009. University of Canterbury Music Quality programme (computer software). Christchurch, NZ.
   Google Scholar
• Oxenham A.J., Bernstein J.G.W., Penagos H. 2004. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101, 1421–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pijl S. 1997. Labeling of musical interval size by cochlear implant patients and normally hearing subjects. Ear Hear, 18, 364–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi B., Krenmayr A., Liu B., Lui H., Chen X., Han D. . 2009. Mandarin speech perception outcomes with temporal presentation of fine structure information in cochlear implants. Poster presented at the 7th Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implants and Related Sciences. Singapore, 1–4 Dec 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Radocy R.E., Boyle J.D. 1988. Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior. Springfield, USA: Charles C. Thomas.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. 1983. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res, 11, 157–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd R.K., Hatsushika S., Clark G.M. 1993. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: The effect of electrode position on neural excitation. Hear Res, 66, 108–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Psarros C. . 2002. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear, 23, 207–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Oxenham A.J. 2002. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416, 87–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stordahl J. 2002. Song recognition and appraisal: A comparison of children who use cochlear implants and normally-hearing children. J Music Ther, 39, 2–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svirsky M.A., Silveira A., Neuburger H., Teoh S.W., Suárez H. 2004. Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 124, 381–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorndike E.L. 1920. A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol, 4, 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Gfeller K., Mehr M. 2000. A preliminary investigation comparing one and eight channels at fast and slow rates on music appraisal in adults with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int, 1, 82–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Preece J.P., Lansing C.R. 1986. Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 282–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Sucher C., Tsang D.J., McKay C.M., Chew J.W.D. . 2005. Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: A comparison of sound-processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3126–3138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeire K., Kleine Punte A., Van de Heyning P. 2009a. Fine structure processing versus CIS+: Objective and subjective evaluation. In: 12th Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children, Seattle, USA. June 17–20, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeire K., Schatzer R., Visser D., Krenmayr A., Kals M. . 2009b. Contributions of temporal and place cues to pitch in the apical region. In: Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Lake Tahoe, USA. July 12–17, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• von Bismark G. 1974a. Sharpness as an attribute of the timbre of steady sounds. Acustica, 30, 159–172.
   Google Scholar
• von Bismark G. 1974b. Timbre of steady sounds: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acustica, 30, 147–159.
   Google Scholar
• Wewers M.E., Lowe N.K. 1990. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health, 13, 227–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K. 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zierhofer C. 2001. Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel-specific sequences. Patent number WO 01/3991 A1.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao F., Bai Z., Stephens D. 2008. The relationship between changes in self-rated quality of life after cochlear implantation and changes in individual complaints. Clin Otolaryngol, 33(5), 427–434.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zwolan T.A., Kileny P.R., Smith S., Waltzman S., Chute P. . 2005. Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol, 26, 455–465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar