Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Melody identification for cochlear implant users and normal hearers using expanded pitch contours

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

Abstract

Music perception is considered unsatisfactory for most cochlear implant (CI) users. Usually, rhythm identification is adequate while pitch and melody recognition are rather limited. The aim of this study was to investigate whether insufficient contour information in the low-frequency range is one cause that contributes to the poor melody recognition results in CI users. For this purpose, the recognition of familiar melodies was tested with three differently expanded pitch contours. Ten cochlear implant subjects and five normal-hearing (NH) volunteers were investigated. Each subject chose ten out of a possible set of 23 well-known nursery songs without verbal cues. The songs were played in the original version and with three different pitch-contour expansions. All versions were tested with and without rhythm and in random order. CI subjects exhibited best results when melodies were presented with expanded pitch contours, although no clear preference for a specific contour modification was observed. Normal-hearing subjects exhibited poorer results for expanded pitch contours, especially when testing without rhythm. Both NH and CI-user groups exhibited large inter-individual differences, and melody recognition with rhythm was always better than melody recognition without rhythm. Insufficient contour information in the low-frequency range is confirmed as one contributing cause for the poor melody recognition results in CI users. Therefore, other efforts to improve low-frequency pitch discrimination, e.g., a more sophisticated design of the electrode array, a focus of the electrical stimulation pattern or an improved signal processing scheme could potentially improve melody recognition as well.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zeng FG (2004) Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 8:T1–T34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kang R, Nimmons GL, Drennan W, Longnion J, Ruffin C, Nie K, Won JH, Worman T, Yueh B, Rubinstein J (2009) Development and validation of the university of Washington clinical assessment of music perception test. Ear Hear 30:411–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Singh S, Kong YY, Zeng FG (2009) Cochlear implant melody recognition as a function of melody frequency range, harmonicicty, and number of electrodes. Ear Hear 30:160–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, Zeng FG (2004) Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 25(2):173–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McDermott HJ, McKay CM (1997) Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101(3):1622–1630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gfeller K, Turner C, Mehr M, Woodworth G, Fearn R, Knutson JF, Witt S, Stordahl J (2002) Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int 3(1):29–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mirza S, Douglas SA, Lindsey P, Hildreth T, Hawthorne M (2003) Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: a patient questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int 4(2):85–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McDermott HJ (2004) Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 8(2):49–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pijl S (1997) Labeling of musical interval size by cochlear implant patients and normally hearing subjects. Ear Hear 18:364–372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper WB, Tobey E, Loizou PC (2008) Music perception by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal battery for evaluation of amusia. Ear Hear 29:618–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fujita S, Ito J (1999) Ability of nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108:634–640

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hiki S, Fukuda Y (2000) Pitch perception through the cochlear implant for speech and music. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 57:12–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Loeb GE (2005) Are cochlear implant patients suffering from perceptual dissonance? Ear Hear 26:435–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Milczynski M, Wouters J, van Wieringen A (2009) Improved fundamental frequency coding in cochlear implant signal processing. J Acoust Soc Am 125:2260–2271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Laneau J, Wouters J (2004) Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 116(6):3606–3619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwon BJ, van den Honert C (2006) Dual-electrode pitch discrimination with sequential interleaved stimulation by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 120(v1):EL1–EL6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Donaldson GS, Kreft HA, Litvak L (2005) Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 118(2):623–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baumann U, Nobbe A (2004) Pitch ranking with deeply inserted electrode arrays. Ear Hear 25:275–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baumann U, Nobbe A (2006) The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function. Hear Res 213:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Houtsma AJM, Smurzynski J (1990) Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 87:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Levitin DJ (1999) Memory for musical attributes. In: Cook PR (ed) Music, cognition and computerized sound: an introduction to psychoacoustics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 209–227

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leal MC, Shin YJ, Laborde ML, Calmels MN, Verges S, Lugardon S, Andrieu S, Deguine O, Fraysse B (2003) Music perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol 123:826–835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Koelsch S, Wittfoth M, Wolf A, Müller J, Hahne A (2004) Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related study. Clin Neurophysiol 115:966–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Edworthy J (1985) Interval and contour in melody processing. Music Percept 2:375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schubert E, Stevens C (2006) The effect of implied harmony, contour and musical expertise on judgments of similarity of familiar melodies. J New Music Res 35:161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Welker RL (1982) Abstraction of themes from melodic variations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8:435–447

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim YE, Chai W, Garcia R, Vercoe B (2000) Analysis of a contour-based representation for melody. MIT Media Laboratory, Machine Listening Group. http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~chaiwei/papers/Kim.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2011

  28. Dowling WJ, Bartlett JC (1981) The importance of interval information in long-term memory for melodies. Psychomusicology 1:30–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Trehub SE, Morrongiello BA, Thorpe LA (1985) Children’s perception of familiar melodies: the role of intervals, contour, and key. Psychomusicology 5:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Laneau J, Wouters J, Moonen M (2006) Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 11:38–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Xu L, Zhou N, Chen X, Li Y, Schultz HM, Zhao X, Han D (2009) Vocal singing by prelingually-deafned children with cochlear implants. Hear Res 255(1–2):129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. di Nardo W, Scorpecci A, Giannantonio S, Cianfrone F, Paludetti G (2011) Improving melody recognition in cochlear implants recipients through individualized frequency map fitting. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268:27–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Aschendorff A, Kromeier J, Klenzner T, Laszig R (2007) Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 28:75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Spahr AJ, Litvak LM, Dorman MF, Bohanan AR, Mishra LN (2008) Simulating the effects of spread of electric excitation on musical tuning and melody identification with a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51:1599–1606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from Cochlear Ltd., London. We wish to thank Elizabeth Provan-Klotz and Dianne Mecklenburg for her very helpful comments reviewing this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT Clinic, Medical School, University Hospital Erlangen, Waldstraße 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Frank Michael Digeser, Anne Hast & Ulrich Hoppe

  2. Department of Audiology, ENT Clinic, University Hospital Freiburg, Killianstraße 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Thomas Wesarg

  3. Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Karl-Wiechert-Allee 76A, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Horst Hessel

Authors
  1. Frank Michael Digeser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Hast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Wesarg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Horst Hessel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ulrich Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Michael Digeser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Digeser, F.M., Hast, A., Wesarg, T. et al. Melody identification for cochlear implant users and normal hearers using expanded pitch contours. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269, 2317–2326 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1885-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1885-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation