Elsevier

Hearing Research

Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 September 1996, Pages 139-150
Hearing Research

Research paper
Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(96)00095-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Cochlear implant users with some residual hearing in the non-implanted ear compared the pitch sensations produced by acoustic pure tones and pulsatile electric stimuli. Pitch comparisons were obtained for pure tones and electrical stimuli presented at different positions (electrodes) in the scala tympani, keeping the electric pulse rate fixed at 100, 250, or 800 pps. Similarly, pitch comparisons were obtained for electrical stimuli with variable pulse rates presented to two fixed electrode positions (apical and basal) in the cochlea. Both electrode position and pulse rate influenced the perceived pitch of the electrical signal and ‘matched’ electric and acoustic signals were found over a wide range of frequencies. There was a large variation between listeners. For some stimuli, listeners had difficulty in deciding whether the acoustic or electric stimulus was higher in pitch. Despite the variability, consistent trends were obtained from the data: higher frequencies tended to be matched by more basal electrodes for all pulse rates. Higher frequencies tended to be matched by higher pulse rates for both electrode positions. The electrode positions that ‘matched’ pure tones were more basal than predicted from the characteristic frequency coordinates of the basilar membrane in a normal human cochlea.

References (36)

  • R.N. Shepard

    Circularity in judgments of relative pitch

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1964)
  • S.R. Silverman et al.

    Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry

    Ann. Otol. Rhino]. Laryngol.

    (1955)
  • R.C. Bilger

    Psychoacoustic evaluation of current prostheses

    Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol.

    (1977)
  • P.J. Blarney et al.

    An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1985)
  • P.J. Blarney et al.

    Formant-based processing for hearing aids

    Speech Comm.

    (1993)
  • P.J. Blarney et al.

    Pitch matching of acoustic and electric stimuli

    Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol.

    (1995)
  • G. Bredberg

    Cellular pattern and nerve supply of the human organ of Corti

    Acta Oto-Laryngol.

    (1968)
  • P.A. Busby et al.

    Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the Cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1994)
  • G.M. Clark et al.

    A multiple-electrode cochlear implant for children

    Arch. Otolaryngol.

    (1987)
  • H. Davis et al.

    Temporary deafness following exposure to loud tones and noise

    Acta Otolaryngol.

    (1950)
  • M.F. Dorman et al.

    Pitch scaling and speech understanding by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant

    Ear Hear.

    (1990)
  • M.F. Dorman et al.

    The pitch of electrically presented sinusoids

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1994)
  • D.K. Eddington et al.

    Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man

    Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol.

    (1978)
  • D.K. Eddington et al.

    Place and periodicity pitch by stimulation of multiple scala tympani electrodes in deaf volunteers

    Trans. Am. Soc. Artif. Intern. Organs

    (1978)
  • E.F. Evans

    Place and time coding of frequency in the peripheral auditory system: some physiological pros and cons

    Audiology

    (1978)
  • D.D. Greenwood

    Critical bandwidth and the frequency coordinates of the basilar membrane

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1961)
  • R. Hincjosa et al.

    Profound deafness: associated sensory and neural degeneration

    Arch. Otolaryngol.

    (1980)
  • A. Kawano et al.

    Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of Organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal's canal

    Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (69)

    • An integrated model of pitch perception incorporating place and temporal pitch codes with application to cochlear implant research

      2017, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, although the pitch perception theories are derived from normal hearing (NH) auditory behavior, listeners with cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to employ similar pitch perception cues to make pitch decisions (e.g., Tong et al., 1983 and Nelson et al., 1995). In CI hearing, however, pitch perception cues are not as effective as in NH due to inability of implants to provide sufficient pitch information or due to cochlear changes caused by deafness (e.g., Blamey et al., 1996, Carlyon and Deeks, 2002, Schatzer et al., 2014). Researchers are still investigating how an implanted ear makes use of the pitch information present in electrical stimulation and what would be a more effective way of encoding pitch through trains of electrical impulses (e.g., Geurts and Wouters, 2004, Green et al., 2004, Vandali et al., 2005).

    • Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time

      2015, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      For a given angle of insertion, acoustic pitch matches tended to be lower in frequency than predicted by the Stakhovskaya et al. (2007) SG frequency map. Although there have been multiple reports of acoustic matches to single electrode stimulation, most previous reports have been limited by severely impaired acoustic hearing (e. g. Reiss et al., 2007, 2014; McDermott et al., 2009), adaptation to a speech coding strategy (e. g. Baumann et al., 2011; Schatzer et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2014), or both (e. g. Blamey et al., 1996; Boëx et al., 2006). Carlyon et al. (2010) and McDermott et al. (2009) found place-pitch matches with inexperienced implant users to be closer to either the Greenwood (1990) organ of Corti estimate or the Stakhovskaya et al. (2007) spiral ganglion estimate.

    • Application of a pitch perception model to investigate the effect of stimulation field spread on the pitch ranking abilities of cochlear implant recipients

      2014, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The structure of the cochlea and the distribution of the 200 auditory neurons were the same as described in the previous section. However, the depth of electrode insertion varies among implantees (see for example Ketten et al. (1998)) and the Greenwood frequency-position cannot be presumed for electrical hearing (Blamey et al., 1996; Schatzer et al., 2014). Thus, the auditory neurons are represented by their order (1–200, with one being the most apical) and not their CFs.

    • Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: Frequency-place functions and rate pitch

      2014, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Many of these studies found that the pitch elicited through stimulation of intracochlear electrodes was generally between one and two octaves below Greenwood's estimate (1961, 1990) for the frequency-place function in humans (Blamey et al., 1996; Boëx et al., 2006; Dorman et al., 2007). Blamey et al. (1996) conducted pitch-comparison experiments in 13 subjects with relatively poor hearing in their non-implanted ear. Results were quite variable across subjects, and the pitch elicited through stimulation of intracochlear electrodes was generally between Greenwood's prediction and three octaves below that prediction.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text