Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modulation Frequency Discrimination with Modulated and Unmodulated Interference in Normal Hearing and in Cochlear-Implant Users

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Differences in fundamental frequency (F0) provide an important cue for segregating simultaneous sounds. Cochlear implants (CIs) transmit F0 information primarily through the periodicity of the temporal envelope of the electrical pulse trains. Successful segregation of sounds with different F0s requires the ability to process multiple F0s simultaneously, but it is unknown whether CI users have this ability. This study measured modulation frequency discrimination thresholds for half-wave rectified sinusoidal envelopes modulated at 115 Hz in CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners. The target modulation was presented in isolation or in the presence of an interferer. Discrimination thresholds were strongly affected by the presence of an interferer, even when it was unmodulated and spectrally remote. Interferer modulation increased interference and often led to very high discrimination thresholds, especially when the interfering modulation frequency was lower than that of the target. Introducing a temporal offset between the interferer and the target led to at best modest improvements in performance in CI users and NH listeners. The results suggest no fundamental difference between acoustic and electric hearing in processing single or multiple envelope-based F0s, but confirm that differences in F0 are unlikely to provide a robust cue for perceptual segregation in CI users.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernstein JG, Oxenham AJ (2003) Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: harmonic resolvability or harmonic number? J Acoust Soc Am 113:3323–3334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein LR, Trahiotis C (2002) Enhancing sensitivity to interaural delays at high frequencies by using "transposed stimuli". J Acoust Soc Am 112:1026–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brokx JP, Nooteboom SG (1982) Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. J Phonetics 10:23–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby PA, Clark GM (1997) Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 101:1687–1695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlyon RP (1996a) Encoding the fundamental frequency of a complex tone in the presence of a spectrally overlapping masker. J Acoust Soc Am 99:517–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlyon RP (1996b) Masker asynchrony impairs the fundamental-frequency discrimination of unresolved harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 99:525–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlyon RP, Long CJ, Deeks JM, McKay CM (2007) Concurrent sound segregation in electric and acoustic hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:119–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carlyon RP, Mahendran S, Deeks JM, Long CJ, Axon P, Baguley D, Bleeck S, Winter IM (2008) Behavioral and physiological correlates of temporal pitch perception in electric and acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 123:973–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Long CJ, Deeks JM, Wouters J (2002) Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 112:621–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee M (2003) Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components. J Acoust Soc Am 113:2042–2053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CJ, Brungart DS, Simpson BD (2003) Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2913–2922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deeks JM, Carlyon RP (2004) Simulations of cochlear implant hearing using filtered harmonic complexes: implications for concurrent sound segregation. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1736–1746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel H, Carlyon RP, Moore BCJ (2005) Pitch discrimination interference: the role of pitch pulse asynchrony. J Acoust Soc Am 117:3860–3866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel H, Carlyon RP, Plack CJ (2004) Across-frequency interference effects in fundamental frequency discrimination: questioning evidence for two pitch mechanisms. J Acoust Soc Am 116:1092–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel HE, Carlyon RP, Plack CJ (2009a) Further examination of pitch discrimination interference between complex tones containing resolved harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 125:1059–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel HE, Carlyon RP, Plack CJ (2009b) Pitch discrimination interference between binaural and monaural or diotic pitches. J Acoust Soc Am 126:281–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel HE, Hafter ER, Moore BC (2009c) Pitch discrimination interference: the role of ear of entry and of octave similarity. J Acoust Soc Am 125:324–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kohlrausch A, Fassel R, Dau T (2000) The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers. J Acoust Soc Am 108:723–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kong YY, Deeks JM, Axon PR, Carlyon RP (2009) Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 125:1649–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft HA, Oxenham AJ, Nelson DA (2010) Modulation rate discrimination using half-wave rectified and sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli in cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 127:656–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Landsberger DM (2008) Effects of modulation wave shape on modulation frequency discrimination with electrical hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 124:EL21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt H (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKay CM, McDermott HJ (1996) The perception of temporal patterns for electrical stimulation presented at one or two intracochlear sites. J Acoust Soc Am 100:1081–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Micheyl C, Bernstein JG, Oxenham AJ (2006) Detection and F0 discrimination of harmonic complex tones in the presence of competing tones or noise. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1493–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Micheyl C, Keebler MV, Oxenham AJ (2010) Pitch perception for mixtures of spectrally overlapping harmonic complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 128:257–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Micheyl C, Oxenham AJ (2007) Across-frequency pitch discrimination interference between complex tones containing resolved harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 121:1621–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore BCJ, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcantara JI (2000) A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 34:205–224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DA, Kreft HA, Anderson ES, Donaldson GS (2011) Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3916–3933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oxenham AJ, Bernstein JGW, Penagos H (2004) Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:1421–1425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oxenham AJ, Simonson AM (2009) Masking release for low- and high-pass filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J Acoust Soc Am 125:457–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qin MK, Oxenham AJ (2003) Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 114:446–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Santurette S, Dau T (2011) The role of temporal fine structure information for the low pitch of high-frequency complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 129:282–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Santurette S, Dau T, Oxenham AJ (2012) On the possibility of a place code for the low pitch of high-frequency complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 132:3883–3895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton TM, Carlyon RP (1994) The role of resolved and unresolved harmonics in pitch perception and frequency modulation discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 95:3529–3540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stickney GS, Assmann PF, Chang J, Zeng FG (2007) Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. J Acoust Soc Am 122:1069–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van de Par S, Kohlrausch A (1997) A new approach to comparing binaural masking level differences at low and high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 101:1671–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NIDCD grant R01 DC 005216 and by the Lions 5M International Hearing Foundation. The authors thank Advanced Bionics Corporation, in particular Leo Litvak, for supplying the BEDCS research interface providing advice and assistance in its implementation, Ningyuan Wang for programming support, and Christophe Micheyl, Associate Editor Bob Carlyon, and two reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The authors wish to extend special thanks to the subjects who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Psychoacoustics Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Minnesota, MMC 396, Rm 8-323 PWB, 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Heather A. Kreft, David A. Nelson & Andrew J. Oxenham

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Andrew J. Oxenham

Authors
  1. Heather A. Kreft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew J. Oxenham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Oxenham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kreft, H.A., Nelson, D.A. & Oxenham, A.J. Modulation Frequency Discrimination with Modulated and Unmodulated Interference in Normal Hearing and in Cochlear-Implant Users. JARO 14, 591–601 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0391-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0391-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation