Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-frequency pitch perception in children with cochlear implants in comparison to normal hearing peers

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

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the application of two new pitch perception tests in children with cochlear implants (CI) and to compare CI outcomes to normal hearing (NH) children, as well as investigating the effect of chronological age on performance. The tests were believed to be linked to the availability of Temporal Fine Structure (TFS) cues. 20 profoundly deaf children with CI (5–17 years) and 31 NH peers participated in the study. Harmonic Intonation (HI) and Disharmonic Intonation (DI) tests were used to measure low-frequency pitch perception. HI/DI outcomes were found poorer in children with CI. CI and NH groups showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). HI scores were better than those of DI test (p < 0.001). Chronological age had a significant effect on DI performance in NH group (p < 0.05); children under the age of 8.5 years showed larger inter-subject-variability; however, the majority of NH children showed outcomes that were considered normal at adult-level. For the DI test, bimodal listeners had better performance than when listening with CI alone. HI/DI tests were applicable as clinical tools in the pediatric population. The majority of CI users showed abnormal outcomes on both tests confirming poor TFS processing in the hearing-impaired population. Findings indicated that the DI test provided more differential low-frequency pitch perception outcomes in that it reflected phase locking and TFS processing capacities of the ear, whereas HI test provided information of its place coding capacity 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lederberg AR, Schick B, Spencer PE (2013) Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: successes and challenges. Dev Psychol 49:15–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nicastri M, Filipo R, Ruoppolo G, Dincer H, Viccaro M, Guerzoni L, Cuda D, Bosco E, Prosperini L, Mancini P (2014) Inferences and metaphoric comprehension in unilaterally implanted children with adequate formal oral language performance. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78:821–827. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Park E, Shipp DB, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM, Lin VY (2011) Postlingually deaf adults of all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 22:637–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Looi V, Radford CJ (2011) A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 75:472–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA (2008) The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurootol 13:105–112

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cullington HE, Zeng FG (2011) Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification. Ear Hear 32:16–30

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McDermott HJ, Oxenham AJ (2008) Music perception, pitch and the auditory system. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18:452–463

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore BJC (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 9:399–406

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaerenberg B, Pascu A, Del Bo L, Schauwers K, De Ceulaer G, Daemers K, Coene M, Govaerts PJ (2011) Clinical assessment of pitch perception. Otol Neurotol 32:736–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moore BJC, Vickers DA, Mehta A (2012) The effects of age on temporal fine structure sensitivity in monaural and binaural conditions. Int J Audiol 51:715–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ (2006) Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:18866–18869

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heeren W, Coene M, Vaerenberg B, Avram A, Cardinaletti A, Del Bo L, Pascu A, Volpato F, Govaerts PJ (2012) Development of A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech. Cochlear Implants Int 13:206–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schauwers K, Coene M, Heeren W, Del Bo L, Pascu A, Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ (2012) Perception of pitch changes in hearing impaired adults with aided and unaided hearing loss. J Hear Sci 2:OA25–OA34

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vaerenberg B, Péan V, Lesbros G, De Ceulaer G, Schauwers K, Daemers K, Gnansia D, Govaerts PJ (2013) Combined electric and acoustic performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place and temporal coding evaluation. Cochlear Implants Int 14:150–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. See RL, Driscoll VD, Gfeller K, Kliethermes S, Oleson J (2013) Speech intonation and melodic contour recognition in children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing. Otol Neurotol 34:490–498

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yucel E, Sennaroglu G, Belgin E (2009) The family oriented musical training for children with cochlear implants: speech and musical perception results of two year follow-up. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 73:1043–1052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen JK, Chuang AY, McMahon C, Hsieh JC, Tung TH, Li LP (2010) Music training improves pitch perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants. Pediatrics 125:e793–e800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hillenbrand J (1983) Perceptual organization of speech sounds by infants. J Speech Hear Res 26:268–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Filipo R, Bosco E, Mancini P, Ballantyne D (2004) Cochlear implants in special cases: deafness in the presence of disabilities and/or associated problems. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 552:74–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cutugno F, Prosser S, Turrini M (2000) Audiometria Vocale, vol IV. Padova, GN Resound Italia

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vaerenberg B, Heeren W, Govaerts PJ (2013) Managed estimation of psychophysical thresholds. J Hear Sci 3:19–31

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kral A, Sharma A (2012) Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Trends Neurosci 35:111–122

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miura M, Sando I, Hirsch BE, Orita Y (2002) Analysis of spiral ganglion cell populations in children with normal and pathological ears. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 111:1059–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hsiao F, Gfeller K (2012) Music perception of cochlear implant recipients with implications for music instruction: a review of literature. Update Univ S C Dep Music 30:5–10

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nie K, Barco A, Zeng FG (2006) Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear Hear 27:208–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Drennan WR, Won JH, Nie K, Jameyson E, Rubinstein JT (2010) Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 262:1–8

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilson BS, Dorman MF (2008) Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 45:695–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Boyle PJ, Nunn TB, O’Connor AF, Moore BCJ (2013) STARR: a speech test for evaluation of the effectiveness of auditory prostheses under realistic conditions. Ear Hear 34:203–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mancini P, Bosco E, D’Agosta L, Traisci G, Nicastri M, Giusti L, Musacchio A (2010) Testing auditory skills in children CI users: is phonemic discrimination related to acoustic variables only? Cochlear Implants Int 11:332–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 31, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro, Roberto Filipo, Deborah Ballantyne, Giuseppe Attanasio, Ersilia Bosco, Maria Nicastri & Patrizia Mancini

Authors
  1. Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Filipo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah Ballantyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe Attanasio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ersilia Bosco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Nicastri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrizia Mancini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dincer D’Alessandro, H., Filipo, R., Ballantyne, D. et al. Low-frequency pitch perception in children with cochlear implants in comparison to normal hearing peers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272, 3115–3122 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3313-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3313-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation