Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Cochlear Implant Experience on Music Perception: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • OTOLOGY: Advances in Otology (BD Nichola, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Otorhinolaryngology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper is to analyze previously published literature to evaluate whether there is a relationship between music perception in cochlear implant users and duration of cochlear implant experience.

Recent Findings

There has been little research thus far on this topic. One prospective study done among Korean cochlear implant users has demonstrated passive improvement in timbre and pitch discrimination with time. It is known that speech perception does improve with time, which may point to a similar relationship in music perception as well.

Summary

Based on the available data, there is no significant passive improvement in pitch, timbre, or rhythm perception in CI users over time. There was significant heterogeneity in the methodology of music assessment and the patient populations that impacted the results of the current study. In order to improve the quality of music perception research, we advocate for standard reporting guidelines for future music perception studies.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Music perception in cochlear implant users and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):779–89. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2007.08.0118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. •• McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif. 2004;8(2):49–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380400800203. Review, although from some years ago, laid important groundwork for baseline music perception expectations in cochlear implant users.

  3. Limb CJ, Rubinstein JT. Current research on music perception in cochlear implant users. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2012;45(1):129–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2011.08.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shukor NFA, Lee J, Seo YJ, Han W. Efficacy of music training in hearing aid and cochlear implant users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;14(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2020.00101.

  5. Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, Strauss-Schier A, Lenarz T, Buechner A. Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(4):509–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318171972f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahn J, Ryu G, Cho YS. Long-term changes in musical perception in Korean cochlear implant patients. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):312–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Gfeller K, Oleson J, Knutson JF, Breheny P, Driscoll V, Olszewski C. Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(2):120–134. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19.2.3. This is one of the studies that does provide some evidence that there can be improvement in domains of music perception with passive cochlear implant use over time. Studies like this are uncommon as most evaluate changes with music training rather than passive use.

  8. Looi V, Gfeller K, Driscoll V. Music appreciation and training for cochlear implant recipients: a review. Semin Hear. 2012;33(4):307–34. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1329222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gfeller K, Jiang D, Oleson JJ, Driscoll V, Knutson JF. Temporal stability of music perception and appraisal scores of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(1):28–34. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.1.4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2011;2(1):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear. 2008;29(3):421–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816a0d0b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brockmeier SJ, Fitzgerald D, Searle O, et al. The MuSIC perception test: a novel battery for testing music perception of cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2011;12(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1179/146701010X12677899497236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22(17):2693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020.

  15. Paule RC, Mandel J. Consensus values and weighting factors. J Res Natl Bur Stand (1977). 1982;87(5):377–85. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.087.022.

  16. Bakbergenuly I, Hoaglin DC, Kulinskaya E. Methods for estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analysis of odds ratios. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):426–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Caldwell MT, Jiradejvong P, Limb CJ. Impaired perception of sensory consonance and dissonance in cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(3):229–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gfeller K, Jiang D, Oleson JJ, et al. The effects of musical and linguistic components in recognition of real-world musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. J Music Ther. 2012;49(1):68–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/49.1.68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cooper WB, Tobey E, Loizou PC. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia. Ear Hear. 2008;29(4):618–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318174e787.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiam NT, Deroche ML, Jiradejvong P, Limb CJ. A randomized controlled crossover study of the impact of online music training on pitch and timbre perception in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2019;20(3):247–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-018-00704-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith L, Bartel L, Joglekar S, Chen J. Musical rehabilitation in adult cochlear implant recipients with a self-administered software. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(8):e262–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vandali A, Sly D, Cowan R, van Hoesel R. Training of cochlear implant users to improve pitch perception in the presence of competing place cues. Ear Hear. 2015;36(2):e1–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neben N, Lenarz T, Schuessler M, Harpel T, Buechner A. New cochlear implant research coding strategy based on the MP3(000™) strategy to reintroduce the virtual channel effect. Acta Otolaryngol. 2013;133(5):481–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2012.753639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Filipo R, Ballantyne D, Mancini P, D’elia C. Music perception in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of findings between HiRes90 and HiRes120. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008;128(4):378–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0001648070179695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gfeller K, Witt S, Woodworth G, Mehr MA, Knutson J. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2002;111(4):349–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940211100412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rahne T, Böhme L, Götze G. Timbre discrimination in cochlear implant users and normal hearing subjects using cross-faded synthetic tones. J Neurosci Methods. 2011;199(2):290–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.05.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(12):1298–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480701275261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception by adults with usable pre-operative acoustic hearing. Int J Audiol. 2008;47(5):257–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020801955237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang R, Nimmons GL, Drennan W, et al. Development and validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception test. Ear Hear. 2009;30(4):411–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61bc0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gfeller K, Witt S, Adamek M, et al. Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13(3):132–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Müller V, Klünter H, Fürstenberg D, Meister H, Walger M, Lang-Roth R. Examination of prosody and timbre perception in adults with cochlear implants comparing different fine structure coding strategies. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(2):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shukor NFA, Lee J, Seo YJ, Han W. Efficacy of music training in hearing aid and cochlear implant users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;14(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2020.00101.

  33. Dillon MT, Buss E, Adunka MC, et al. Long-term speech perception in elderly cochlear implant users. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(3):279–83. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Hwa TP, Wen CZ, Ruckenstein MJ. Assessment of music experience after cochlear implantation: a review of current tools and their utilization. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;7(2):116–125. Published 2021 Apr 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2021.02.003. This is an important paper that goes into detail on the heterogeneity that exists within the music-perception evaluation domain. This also supports the recommendation that standardization of evaluation/data collection can help create stronger future studies.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA

    Anita Sulibhavi, Kevin L. Li & Tiffany P. Hwa

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA

    Christopher Z. Wen

Authors
  1. Anita Sulibhavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Z. Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin L. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tiffany P. Hwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany P. Hwa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on OTOLOGY: Advances in Otology

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 9 KB)

Supplementary file2 (JPG 147 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sulibhavi, A., Wen, C.Z., Li, K. et al. The Impact of Cochlear Implant Experience on Music Perception: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep 10, 315–321 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-022-00418-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-022-00418-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation