» Articles » PMID: 26375968

Pitch Discrimination: An Independent Factor in Cochlear Implant Performance Outcomes

Overview
Journal Otol Neurotol
Date 2015 Sep 17
PMID 26375968
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To assess differences in pitch-ranking ability across a range of speech understanding performance levels and as a function of electrode position.

Study Design: An observational study of a cross-section of cochlear implantees.

Setting: Tertiary referral center for cochlear implantation.

Patients: A total of 22 patients were recruited. All three manufacturers' devices were included (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria, n = 10; Advanced Bionics, California, USA, n = 8; and Cochlear, Sydney, Australia, n = 4) and all patients were long-term users (more than 18 months). Twelve of these were poor performers (scores on BKB sentence lists <60%) and 10 were excellent performers (BKB >90%).

Intervention: After measurement of threshold and comfort levels, and loudness balancing across the array, all patients underwent thorough pitch-ranking assessments at 80% of comfort levels.

Main Outcome Measure: Ability to discriminate pitch across the electrode array, measured by consistency in discrimination of adjacent pairs of electrodes, as well as an assessment of the pitch order across the array using the midpoint comparison task.

Results: Within the poor performing group there was wide variability in ability to pitch rank, from no errors, to a complete inability to reliably and consistently differentiate pitch change across the electrode array. Good performers were overall significantly more accurate at pitch ranking (p = 0.026). Consistent pitch ranking was found to be a significant independent predictor of BKB score, even after adjusting for age. Users of the MED-EL implant experienced significantly more pitch confusions at the apex than at more basal parts of the electrode array.

Conclusions: Many cochlear implant users struggle to discriminate pitch effectively. Accurate pitch ranking appears to be an independent predictor of overall outcome. Future work will concentrate on manipulating maps based upon pitch discrimination findings in an attempt to improve speech understanding.

Citing Articles

Estimating Pitch Information From Simulated Cochlear Implant Signals With Deep Neural Networks.

Ashihara T, Furukawa S, Kashino M Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241298606.

PMID: 39569552 PMC: 11693851. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241298606.


Effects of selective stimulation of apical electrodes on temporal pitch perception by cochlear implant recipients.

De Groote E, Carlyon R, Deeks J, Macherey O J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(3):2060-2076.

PMID: 39345135 PMC: 11444735. DOI: 10.1121/10.0029023.


Neuropsychological Functions and Audiological Findings in Elderly Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Attention in Postoperative Performance.

Giallini I, Inguscio B, Nicastri M, Portanova G, Ciofalo A, Pace A Audiol Res. 2023; 13(2):236-253.

PMID: 37102772 PMC: 10136178. DOI: 10.3390/audiolres13020022.


Evaluation of a clinical method for selective electrode deactivation in cochlear implant programming.

Warren S, Atcherson S Front Hum Neurosci. 2023; 17:1157673.

PMID: 37063101 PMC: 10101326. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1157673.


Combining Place and Rate of Stimulation Improves Frequency Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.

Bissmeyer S, Goldsworthy R Hear Res. 2022; 424:108583.

PMID: 35930901 PMC: 10849775. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108583.


References
1.
Collins L, Zwolan T, Wakefield G . Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 101(1):440-55. DOI: 10.1121/1.417989. View

2.
Loeb G, WHITE M, Merzenich M . Spatial cross-correlation. A proposed mechanism for acoustic pitch perception. Biol Cybern. 1983; 47(3):149-63. DOI: 10.1007/BF00337005. View

3.
Fishman K, Shannon R, Slattery W . Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997; 40(5):1201-15. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201. View

4.
Dorman M, Loizou P, Rainey D . Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 102(4):2403-11. DOI: 10.1121/1.419603. View

5.
Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, Bredberg G, Brimacombe J, Facer G . Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 1996; 1(5):293-306. DOI: 10.1159/000259212. View