Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical hearing impairment on music quality perception

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of symmetrical, asymmetrical and unilateral hearing impairment on music quality perception. Six validated music pieces in the categories of classical music, folk music and pop music were used to assess music quality in terms of its ‘pleasantness’, ‘naturalness’, ‘fullness’, ‘roughness’ and ‘sharpness’. 58 participants with sensorineural hearing loss [20 with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), 20 with bilateral symmetrical hearing loss (BSHL) and 18 with bilateral asymmetrical hearing loss (BAHL)] and 29 normal hearing (NH) subjects participated in the present study. Hearing impaired (HI) participants had greater difficulty in overall music quality perception than NH participants. Participants with BSHL rated music pleasantness and naturalness to be higher than participants with BAHL. Moreover, the hearing thresholds of the better ears from BSHL and BAHL participants as well as the hearing thresholds of the worse ears from BSHL participants were negatively correlated to the pleasantness and naturalness perception. HI participants rated the familiar music pieces higher than unfamiliar music pieces in the three music categories. Music quality perception in participants with hearing impairment appeared to be affected by symmetry of hearing loss, degree of hearing loss and music familiarity when they were assessed using the music quality rating test (MQRT). This indicates that binaural symmetrical hearing is important to achieve a high level of music quality perception in HI listeners. This emphasizes the importance of provision of bilateral hearing assistive devices for people with asymmetrical hearing impairment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cai Y, Zhao F, Zheng Y (2013) Development and validation of a Chinese music quality rating test. Int J Audiol 52(9):587–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pomerantz J (2003) Perception: overview. Nature Publishing Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chasin M, Russo FA (2004) Hearing Aids and Music. Trends Amplif 8(2):35–47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT (2008) Music perception in cochlear implant users and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(5):779–789

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gfeller K, Lansing CR (1991) Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res 34(4):916–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kong YY, Stickney GS, Zeng FG (2005) Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 117(3 Pt 1):1351–1361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L (2008) Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear 29(3):421–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore BC (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(4):399–406

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wright R, Uchanski RM (2012) Music perception and appraisal: cochlear implant users and simulated cochlear implant listening. J Am Acad Audiol 23(5):350–365

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Uys M, van Dijk C (2011) Development of a music perception test for adult hearing-aid users. S Afr J Commun Disord 58:19–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leek MR, Summers V (2001) Pitch strength and pitch dominance of iterated rippled noises in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 109(6):2944–2954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Most T, Adi-Bensaid L, Shpak T, Sharkiya S, Luntz M (2012) Everyday hearing functioning in unilateral versus bilateral hearing aid users. Am J Otolaryngol 33(2):205–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noble W, Gatehouse S (2006) Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 45(3):172–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dwyer NY, Firszt JB, Reeder RM (2014) Effects of unilateral input and mode of hearing in the better ear: self-reported performance using the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale. Ear Hear 35(1):126–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Noble W (2010) Assessing binaural hearing: results using the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale. J Am Acad Audiol 21(9):568–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R (1988) The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 83(4):1508–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E (2006) An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices. Audiol Neurootol 11(Suppl 1):6–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schneider BA, Li L, Daneman M (2007) How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol 18(7):559–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Noble W, Gatehouse S (2004) Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol 43(2):100–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Looi V, Winter P, Anderson I, Sucher C (2011) A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation. Int J Audiol 50(8):503–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gabrielsson A, Hagerman B, Bech-Kristensen T, Lundberg G (1990) Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency responses and sound levels. J Acoust Soc Am 88(3):1359–1366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gabrielsson A, Schenkman BN, Hagerman B (1988) The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 31(2):166–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gabrielsson A, Sjogren H (1979) Perceived sound quality of sound-reproducing systems. J Acoust Soc Am 65(4):1019–1033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gabrielsson A, Sjogren H (1979) Perceived sound quality of hearing aids. Scand Audiol 8(3):159–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gfeller K, Witt S, Adamek M, Mehr M, Rogers J, Stordahl J et al (2002) Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 13(3):132–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lundberg G, Ovegard A, Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A, Brandstrom U (1992) Perceived sound quality in a hearing aid with vented and closed earmould equalized in frequency response. Scand Audiol 21(2):87–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ovegard A, Lundberg G, Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A, Bengtsson M, Brandstrom U (1997) Sound quality judgment during acclimatization of hearing aid. Scand Audiol 26(1):43–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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(2):78–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leek MR, Molis MR, Kubli LR, Tufts JB (2008) Enjoyment of music by elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 19(6):519–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaas JH, Hackett TA, Tramo MJ (1999) Auditory processing in primate cerebral cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9(2):164–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Moore BC (1996) Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear 17(2):133–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Balfour PB, Hawkins DB (1992) A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. Ear Hear 13(5):331–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Skinner MW (2008) Restoring hearing symmetry with two cochlear implants or one cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(5):749–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peretz I, Gaudreau D, Bonnel AM (1998) Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Mem Cognit 26(5):884–902

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Salimpoor VN, Benovoy M, Longo G, Cooperstock JR, Zatorre RJ (2009) The rewarding aspects of music listening are related to degree of emotional arousal. PLoS ONE 4(10):e7487

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Christopher Wigham for his proof reading.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

      Yuexin Cai, Yuebo Chen, Maojin Liang, Ling Chen, Haidi Yang, Hao Xiong, Xueyuan Zhang & Yiqing Zheng

    2. Institute of Hearing and Speech-Language Science, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

      Yuexin Cai, Yuebo Chen, Maojin Liang, Ling Chen, Haidi Yang, Hao Xiong, Xueyuan Zhang & Yiqing Zheng

    3. Department of Speech Language Therapy and Hearing Science, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

      Fei Zhao

    4. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Xinhua College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

      Fei Zhao

    Authors
    1. Yuexin Cai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Fei Zhao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Yuebo Chen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Maojin Liang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Ling Chen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Haidi Yang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Hao Xiong
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Xueyuan Zhang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Yiqing Zheng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Yiqing Zheng.

    Ethics declarations

    Financial disclosures

    This work was partially funded by National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81170921), Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant No. S2011010004576), and National University Student Innovation Training Scheme (Grant No. 201501091). The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper

    Additional information

    Y. Cai, F. Zhao and Y. Chen contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Cai, Y., Zhao, F., Chen, Y. et al. The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical hearing impairment on music quality perception. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2451–2459 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3838-8

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3838-8

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation