Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31551686›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019

Pleasantness Ratings for Harmonic Intervals With Acoustic and Electric Hearing in Unilaterally Deaf Cochlear Implant Patients.

Emily R Spitzer, David M Landsberger, David R Friedmann, John J Galvin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The perception of emotion in music by people with hearing loss and people with cochlear implants.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Emily R SpitzerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
David M LandsbergerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
David R FriedmannDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
John J GalvinHouse Ear Institute, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

Funding

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 DC012152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHarmony is an important part of tonal music that conveys context, form and emotion. Two notes sounded simultaneously form a harmonic interval. In normal-hearing (NH) listeners, some harmonic intervals (e.g., minor 2nd, tritone, major 7th) typically sound more dissonant than others (e.g., octave, major 3rd, 4th). Because of the limited spectro-temporal resolution afforded by cochlear implants (CIs), music perception is generally poor. However, CI users may still be sensitive to relative dissonance across intervals. In this study, dissonance ratings for harmonic intervals were measured in 11 unilaterally deaf CI patients, in whom ratings from the CI could be compared to those from the normal ear.

methodsStimuli consisted of pairs of equal amplitude MIDI piano tones. Intervals spanned a range of two octaves relative to two root notes (F3 or C4). Dissonance was assessed in terms of subjective pleasantness ratings for intervals presented to the NH ear alone, the CI ear alone, and both ears together (NH + CI). Ratings were collected for both root notes for within- and across-octave intervals (1-12 and 13-24 semitones). Participants rated the pleasantness of each interval by clicking on a line anchored with "least pleasant" and "most pleasant." A follow-up experiment repeated the task with a smaller stimulus set.

resultsWith NH-only listening, within-octave intervals minor 2nd, major 2nd, and major 7th were rated least pleasant; major 3rd, 5th, and octave were rated most pleasant. Across-octave counterparts were similarly rated. With CI-only listening, ratings were consistently lower and showed a reduced range. Mean ratings were highly correlated between NH-only and CI-only listening ( DISCUSSION: Although pleasantness ratings were less differentiated for the CI ear than the NH ear, there were similarities between the two listening modes. Given the lack of spectro-temporal detail needed for harmonicity-based distinctions, temporal envelope interactions (within and across channels) associated with a perception of roughness may contribute to dissonance perception for harmonic intervals with CI-only listening.

Indexed as

cochlear implantdissonanceharmonic intervalsmusic perceptionsingle-sided deafness

Identifiers

PMID31551686
PMCPMC6733976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.