Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31469701›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Music Is More Enjoyable With Two Ears, Even If One of Them Receives a Degraded Signal Provided By a Cochlear Implant.

David M Landsberger, Katrien Vermeire, Natalia Stupak, Annette Lavender, Jonathan Neukam, Paul Van de Heyning, Mario A Svirsky

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. More than 20 years of cochlear implantation in adults with acquired single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss: long term clinical outcomes of 78 subjects implanted at the Antwerp University Hospital.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David M LandsbergerDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Katrien VermeireDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Long Island University Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Natalia StupakDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Annette LavenderDepartment of Otolaryngology, Cochlear Americas, Englewood, Colorado, CO, USA.
Jonathan NeukamDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Paul Van de HeyningUniversity Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Mario A SvirskyDepartment of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
New York University · USLong Island University · USUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

MODELS OF SPEECH PERCEPTION BY COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC003937 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SVIRSKY, MARIO A · 1999 to 2020
$7.2M
Clinical management of cochlear implant patients with contralateral hearing aids.R01DC011329 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI NEUMAN, ARLENE C., SVIRSKY, MARIO A · 2011 to 2015
$2.8M
Reduction in spread of excitation as predictor multi-channel spectral resolutionR01DC012152 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC003937NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011329NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCochlear implants (CIs) restore speech perception in quiet but they also eliminate or distort many acoustic cues that are important for music enjoyment. Unfortunately, quantifying music enjoyment by CI users has been difficult because comparisons must rely on their recollection of music before they lost their hearing. Here, we aimed to assess music enjoyment in CI users using a readily interpretable reference based on acoustic hearing. The comparison was done by testing "single-sided deafness" (SSD) patients who have normal hearing (NH) in one ear and a CI in the other ear. The study also aimed to assess binaural musical enjoyment, with the reference being the experience of hearing with a single NH ear. Three experiments assessed the effect of adding different kinds of input to the second ear: electrical, vocoded, or unmodified.

designIn experiment 1, music enjoyment in SSD-CI users was investigated using a modified version of the MUSHRA (MUltiple Stimuli with Hidden Reference and Anchor) method. Listeners rated their enjoyment of song segments on a scale of 0 to 200, where 100 represented the enjoyment obtained from a song segment presented to the NH ear, 0 represented a highly degraded version of the same song segment presented to the same ear, and 200 represented enjoyment subjectively rated as twice as good as the 100 reference. Stimuli consisted of acoustic only, electric only, acoustic and electric, as well as other conditions with low pass filtered acoustic stimuli. Acoustic stimulation was provided by headphone to the NH ear and electric stimulation was provided by direct audio input to the subject's speech processor. In experiment 2, the task was repeated using NH listeners who received vocoded stimuli instead of electric stimuli. Experiment 3 tested the effect of adding the same unmodified song segment to the second ear, also in NH listeners.

resultsMusic presented through the CI only was very unpleasant, with an average rating of 20. Surprisingly, the combination of the unpleasant CI signal in one ear with acoustic stimulation in the other ear was rated more enjoyable (mean = 123) than acoustic processing alone. Presentation of the same monaural musical signal to both ears in NH listeners resulted with even greater enhancement of the experience compared with presentation to a single ear (mean = 159). Repeating the experiment using a vocoder to one ear of NH listeners resulted in interference rather than enhancement.

conclusionsMusic enjoyment from electric stimulation is extremely poor relative to a readily interpretable NH baseline for CI-SSD listeners. However, the combination of this unenjoyable signal presented through a CI and an unmodified acoustic signal presented to a NH (or near-NH) contralateral ear results in enhanced music enjoyment with respect to the acoustic signal alone. Remarkably, this two-ear enhancement experienced by CI-SSD listeners represents a substantial fraction of the two-ear enhancement seen in NH listeners. This unexpected benefit of electroacoustic auditory stimulation will have to be considered in theoretical accounts of music enjoyment and may facilitate the quest to enhance music enjoyment in CI users.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsMusicSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionHumans

Identifiers

PMID31469701
PMCPMC9446518
OpenAlexW2970426126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.