Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42602504›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in audiology and otology2025

Using musical pitch interval comparisons to assess cochlear implant frequency-to-place maps.

Rebecca M Lewis, Melanie L Gilbert, Jordan A Beim, Andrew J Oxenham, Charles J Limb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in audiology and otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Rebecca M LewisDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Melanie L GilbertDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jordan A BeimDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Andrew J OxenhamDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Charles J LimbDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Funding

Complex Pitch Perception in Complex EnvironmentsR01DC005216 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Andrew J. Oxenham · 2002 to 2026
$9.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Music perception remains challenging for many cochlear implant (CI) recipients, due perhaps in part to a frequency mismatch that can occur between the original tonotopic cochlear map and the allocation of frequencies along the electrode array that occurs during programming. Individual differences in ear anatomy, electrode array length, and surgical insertion can lead to great variability in the positions of electrodes within the cochlea, but these differences are not typically accounted for by current CI programming techniques. Objectives: Flat panel computed tomography (FPCT) can be used to visualize the location of the electrodes and calculate the corresponding spiral ganglion characteristic frequencies. Such FPCT-based CI frequency mapping may improve pitch perception accuracy, and thus music appreciation, as well as speech perception. The present study seeks to develop a behavioral assessment metric for how well place-based pitch is represented across the frequency spectrum by evaluating the accuracy with which listeners perceive and compare pitch intervals across different frequency regions. Methods: The study included two groups: normal-hearing (NH) listeners and CI recipients. Listeners were asked to match the pitch interval created by two tones, played sequentially, across different frequency ranges to estimate the extent to which pitch is evenly distributed across the CI array. This test was initially evaluated with pure tones in normal-hearing listeners, using both unprocessed and vocoder-processed sounds to simulate both matched and mismatched frequency-to-place maps. We hypothesized that the vocoded stimuli would be more difficult to match in terms of pitch intervals than unprocessed stimuli, and that a warped map (as may occur with current clinical maps) would produce poorer matches than a veridical and well-aligned map (as may be achieved using FPCT-based frequency allocation). Results: Preliminary results suggest that the task can reveal differences between veridical and warped maps in normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions. A small cohort of CI recipients were tested with the same pure tone stimuli (without vocoding). Performance of the CI recipients was similar to that of normal-hearing listeners, and both groups showed less accurate interval matching compared to NH listeners. Discussion: The results suggest promise for this method when comparing the perceptual effects on pitch interval perception of traditional clinical maps and FPCT-based frequency allocation.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcochlear implant programmingflat panel computed tomography (FPCT)frequency-to-place mismatchmusical pitch intervalsnormal hearingpitch perceptionvocoded stimuli

Identifiers

PMID42602504
PMCPMC13475019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.