Download PDF
Semin Hear 2011; 32(1): 103-114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1271951
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Benefits of Combined Acoustic and Electric Hearing for Music and Pitch Perception

Hugh McDermott1
  • 1The Bionic Ear Institute; and Professor of Auditory Communication and Signal Processing, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 February 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The total number of cochlear implant (CI) recipients worldwide is now approaching 200,000. Most current CI users attain an adequate ability to understand speech using the implant alone, despite having had at least severe to profound hearing impairment in both ears preoperatively. The satisfactory technical performance of modern CI systems, at least in favorable listening conditions, has resulted in an increasing proportion of CI recipients having usable acoustic hearing postoperatively in one ear, or even in both ears. Many studies have confirmed that, in general, the simultaneous use of acoustic and electric hearing can provide perceptual benefits in comparison to the use of a CI alone. An especially important advantage conferred by the use of acoustic hearing is the potentially improved ability of CI recipients to perceive musical sounds. In particular, the perception of pitch, which is usually not provided adequately by today's CI systems, can be enhanced when sounds are heard acoustically by CI users with sufficient hearing sensitivity.

KEYWORDS

Cochlear implants - pitch - music perception - bimodal hearing

REFERENCES

  • 1 McDermott H J. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.  Trends Amplif. 2004;  8 (2) 49-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vandali A E, Sucher C M, Tsang D J, McKay C M, Chew J W, McDermott H J. Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  117 (5) 3126-3138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sucher C M, McDermott H J. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality.  Cochlear Implants Int. 2009;  10 (Suppl 1) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dorman M F, Gifford R H, Spahr A J, McKarns S A. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.  Audiol Neurootol. 2008;  13 (2) 105-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kong Y Y, Stickney G S, Zeng F G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  117 (3 Pt 1) 1351-1361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 El Fata F, James C J, Laborde M-L, Fraysse B. How much residual hearing is ‘useful’ for music perception with cochlear implants?.  Audiol Neurootol. 2009;  14 (Suppl 1) 14-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gfeller K E, Turner C W, Mehr M A et al. Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults.  Cochlear Implants Int. 2002;  3 (1) 29-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moore B CJ, Carlyon R P. Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. In: Plack C J, Fay R R, Oxenham A J, Popper A N, eds. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: Pitch Perception. Vol. 24. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2005: 234-277
    Google Scholar
  • 9 McDermott H J, McKay C M. Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;  101 (3) 1622-1631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McDermott H J. Cochlear implants and music. In: Chasin M, ed. Hearing Loss in Musicians, Prevention and Management. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2009: 117-127
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Gfeller K E, Turner C W, Oleson J et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 (3) 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blamey P J, Dooley G J, James C J, Parisi E S. Monaural and binaural loudness measures in cochlear implant users with contralateral residual hearing.  Ear Hear. 2000;  21 (1) 6-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ching T Y. The evidence calls for making binaural-bimodal fittings routine.  The Hearing Journal. 2005;  58 (11) 32-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ching T Y, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review.  Trends Amplif. 2007;  11 (3) 161-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Simpson A, Hersbach A A, McDermott H J. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device.  Int J Audiol. 2005;  44 (5) 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes.  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 (9) 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kuk F, Keenan D, Korhonen P, Lau C C. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 (8) 465-479
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McDermott H, Varsavsky A. Better fitting of cochlear implants: modeling loudness for acoustic and electric stimuli.  J Neural Eng. 2009;  6 (6) 065007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boëx C, Baud L, Cosendai G, Sigrist A, Kós M I, Pelizzone M. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006;  7 (2) 110-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dorman M F, Spahr T, Gifford R et al. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;  8 (2) 234-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vermeire K, Nobbe A, Schleich P, Nopp P, Voormolen M H, Van de Heyning P H. Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus.  Hear Res. 2008;  245 (1-2) 98-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McDermott H, Sucher C, Simpson A. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.  Audiol Neurootol. 2009;  14 (Suppl 1) 2-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Blamey P J, Dooley G J, Parisi E S, Clark G M. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations.  Hear Res. 1996;  99 (1-2) 139-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham B H, Leake P A. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants.  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;  8 (2) 220-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Reiss L A, Turner C W, Erenberg S R, Gantz B J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;  8 (2) 241-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Helms J, Weichbold V, Baumann U et al. Analysis of ceiling effects occurring with speech recognition tests in adult cochlear-implanted patients.  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2004;  66 (3) 130-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kuo Y-C, Rosen S, Faulkner A. Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: implications for cochlear implants.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;  123 (5) 2815-2824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Xu L, Tsai Y, Pfingst B E. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 (1) 247-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Law Z WY, So L KH. Phonological abilities of hearing-impaired Cantonese-speaking children with cochlear implants or hearing aids.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;  49 (6) 1342-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fitzpatrick E M, Séguin C, Schramm D, Chenier J, Armstrong S. Users' experience of a cochlear implant combined with a hearing aid.  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 (4) 172-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Hugh McDermottPh.D. 

Institute Deputy Director (Research), The Bionic Ear Institute

384–388 Albert Street, East Melbourne 3002, Australia

Email: hmcdermott@bionicear.org

      >