ArticleHearing research2024
Characterizing the relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution in cochlear implant users.
Article in Hearing research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear implants are medical devices that have restored hearing to approximately one million people around the world. Outcomes are impressive and most recipients attain excellent speech comprehension in quiet without relying on lip-reading cues, but pitch resolution is poor compared to normal hearing. Amplitude modulation of electrical stimulation is a primary cue for pitch perception in cochlear implant users. The experiments described in this article focus on the relationship between sensitivity to amplitude modulations and pitch resolution based on changes in the frequency of amplitude modulations. In the first experiment, modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution were measured in adults with no known hearing loss and in cochlear implant users with sounds presented to and processed by their clinical devices. Stimuli were amplitude-modulated sinusoids and amplitude-modulated narrow-band noises. Modulation detection and modulation frequency discrimination were measured for modulation frequencies centered on 110, 220, and 440 Hz. Pitch resolution based on changes in modulation frequency was measured for modulation depths of 25 %, 50 %, 100 %, and for a half-waved rectified modulator. Results revealed a strong linear relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution for cochlear implant users and peers with no known hearing loss. In the second experiment, cochlear implant users took part in analogous procedures of modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution but bypassing clinical sound processing using single-electrode stimulation. Results indicated that modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution was better conveyed by single-electrode stimulation than by clinical processors. Results at 440 Hz were worse, but also not well conveyed by clinical sound processing, so it remains unclear whether the 300 Hz perceptual limit described in the literature is a technological or biological limitation. These results highlight modulation depth and sensitivity as critical factors for pitch resolution in cochlear implant users and characterize the relationship that should inform the design of modulation enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.