Publication Cover
Cochlear Implants International
An Interdisciplinary Journal for Implantable Hearing Devices
Volume 16, 2015 - Issue sup3: Music Perception and Cochlear Implants
238
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Papers

Reverberation negatively impacts musical sound quality for cochlear implant users

, , , , &

References

  • Adelman-Larsen, N.W., Thompson, E.R., Gade, A.C. 2010. Suitable reverberation times for halls for rock and pop music. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127: 247–255.
  • Bidelman, G.M., Krishnan, A. 2010. Effects of reverberation on brainstem representation of speech in musicians and non-musicians. Brain Research, 1355: 112–125.
  • Blesser, B.A. 2001. An interdisciplinary synthesis of reverberation viewpoints. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 49: 867–903.
  • Certo, M.V., Kohlberg, G.D., Chari, D.A., Mancuso, D.M., Lalwani, A.K. 2014. Reverberation time influences musical enjoyment with cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 36(2): e46–50.
  • Drennan, W.R., Oleson, J.J., Gfeller, K., Crosson, J., Driscoll, V.D., Won, J.H., et al. 2015. Clinical evaluation of music perception, appraisal and experience in cochlear implant users. International Journal of Audiology, 54: 114–123.
  • Gfeller, K., Christ, A., Knutson, J.F., Witt, S., Murray, K.T. Tyler, R.S. 2000. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11: 390–406.
  • Kokkinakis, K., Hazrati, O., Loizou, P.C. 2011. A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129: 3221–3232.
  • Krishnamoorthy, P., Prasanna, S.R. 2009. Reverberant speech enhancement by temporal and spectral processing. Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing, 17: 253–366.
  • Lassaletta, L., Castro, A., Bastarrica, M., Perez-Mora, R., Herran, B., Sanz, L. et al. 2008a. Changes in listening habits and quality of musical sound after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 138: 363–367.
  • Lassaletta, L., Castro, A., Bastarrica, M., Perez-Mora, R., Herran, B., Sanz, L., et al. 2008b. Musical perception and enjoyment in post-lingual patients with cochlear implants. Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española, 59: 228–234.
  • Limb, C.J., Roy, A.T. 2014. Technological, biological, and acoustical constraints to music perception in cochlear implant users. Hearing Research, 308: 13–26.
  • Lokki, T., Patynen, J., Kuusinen, A., Tervo, S. 2012. Disentangling preference ratings of concert hall acoustics using subjective sensory profiles. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132: 3148–3161.
  • Looi, V., She, J. 2010. Music perception of cochlear implant users: a questionnaire, and its implications for a music training program. International Journal of Audiology, 49: 116–128.
  • Looi, V., Gfeller, K., Driscoll, V.D. 2012. Music appreciation and training for cochlear implant recipients: a review. Seminars in Hearing, 33: 307–334.
  • Mcdermott, H.J. 2004. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends in Amplification, 8: 49–82.
  • Nabelek, A.K., Letowski, T.R., Tucker, F.M. 1989. Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86: 1259–1265.
  • Pätynen, J., Pulkki, V., Lokki, T. 2008. Anechoic recording system for symphony orchestra. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 94: 856–865.
  • Poissant, S.F., Whitmal, N.A., III, Freyman, R.L. 2006. Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119: 1606–1615.
  • Roy, A.T., Jiradejvong, P., Carver, C., Limb, C.J. 2012a. Assessment of sound quality perception in cochlear implant users during music listening. Otology & Neurotology, 33: 319–327.
  • Roy, A.T., Jiradejvong, P., Carver, C., Limb, C.J. 2012b. Musical sound quality impairments in cochlear implant (CI) users as a function of limited high-frequency perception. Trends in Amplification, 16(4): 191–200.
  • Sakai, H., Setoguchi, H., Ando, Y. 1997. Individual subjective preference of simulated sound fields by listeners for opera sound sources in relation to the subsequent reverberation time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(5).
  • Vincent, E. 2005. MUSHRAM: A MATLAB interface for MUSHRA listening tests [Online]. London. Available from: http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/people/emmanuelv/mushram [accessed 21 July 2009].
  • Whitmal, N.A., Poissant, S.F. 2009. Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126: 2556–2569.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.