2012•PubMedRequires access

[Evaluation of rhythmic and timbral perception by normal-hearing and postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users].

Shuo Wang, Ruijuan Dong, Jing Li, Yun Zhou, Beier Qi, Xueqing Chen, Bo Liu

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability in musical activities for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. METHODS: Twelve normal-hearing and 12 adult cochlear implant users were recruited in this study. Rhythm discrimination, instrument identification, and instrument number detection measurements in Musical Sounds in Cochlear Implants (MuSIC) test battery were used to assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability for both normal-hearing and cochlear implant users. RESULTS: Cochlear implant subjects achieved 84.4% correct in rhythm discrimination test on average, which was not significantly different from the performance of normal-hearing subjects (85.1%) (t = 0.116, P > 0.05). The average score of instrument identification and instrument number detection test for cochlear implant subjects were 72.3% and 39.2%, respectively. The performance of cochlear implant subjects in both of two tests were significantly poorer than those of normal-hearing subjects with 88.3% and 73.5% correct, respectively (t = 2.498 and 4.673, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Postlingually deafened cochlear implant subjects, on average, performed significantly poorer in timbral perception tasks relative to normal hearing subjects, while close to the ability of normal hearing subjects in rhythmic perception.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability in musical activities for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. METHODS: Twelve normal-hearing and 12 adult cochlear implant users were recruited in this study. Rhythm discrimination, instrument identification, and instrument number detection measurements in Musical Sounds in Cochlear Implants (MuSIC) test battery were used to assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability for both normal-hearing and cochlear implant users. RESULTS: Cochlear implant subjects achieved 84.4% correct in rhythm discrimination test on average, which was not significantly different from the performance of normal-hearing subjects (85.1%) (t = 0.116, P > 0.05). The average score of instrument identification and instrument number detection test for cochlear implant subjects were 72.3% and 39.2%, respectively. The performance of cochlear implant subjects in both of two tests were significantly poorer than those of normal-hearing subjects with 88.3% and 73.5% correct, respectively (t = 2.498 and 4.673, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Postlingually deafened cochlear implant subjects, on average, performed significantly poorer in timbral perception tasks relative to normal hearing subjects, while close to the ability of normal hearing subjects in rhythmic perception.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability in musical activities for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. METHODS: Twelve normal-hearing and 12 adult cochlear implant users were recruited in this study. Rhythm discrimination, instrument identification, and instrument number detection measurements in Musical Sounds in Cochlear Implants (MuSIC) test battery were used to assess the rhythmic and timbral perception ability for both normal-hearing and cochlear implant users. RESULTS: Cochlear implant subjects achieved 84.4% correct in rhythm discrimination test on average, which was not significantly different from the performance of normal-hearing subjects (85.1%) (t = 0.116, P > 0.05). The average score of instrument identification and instrument number detection test for cochlear implant subjects were 72.3% and 39.2%, respectively. The performance of cochlear implant subjects in both of two tests were significantly poorer than those of normal-hearing subjects with 88.3% and 73.5% correct, respectively (t = 2.498 and 4.673, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Postlingually deafened cochlear implant subjects, on average, performed significantly poorer in timbral perception tasks relative to normal hearing subjects, while close to the ability of normal hearing subjects in rhythmic perception.

Key concepts: Cochlear implant, Audiology, Rhythm, Medicine, Perception, Implant, Discrimination testing, Significant difference

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Evaluation of rhythmic and timbral perception by normal-hearing and postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens