Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling
Cochlear-implant users who have experienced both analog and pulsatile sound coding strategies often have strong preferences for the sound quality of one over the other. This suggests that analog and pulsatile stimulation may provide different information or sound quality to an implant listener. It h...
Saved in:
Published in | Trends in hearing Vol. 22; p. 2331216518807535 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Los Angeles, CA
SAGE Publications
01.01.2018
Sage Publications Ltd SAGE Publishing |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Cochlear-implant users who have experienced both analog and pulsatile sound coding strategies often have strong preferences for the sound quality of one over the other. This suggests that analog and pulsatile stimulation may provide different information or sound quality to an implant listener. It has been well documented that many implant listeners both prefer and perform better with multichannel analog than multichannel pulsatile strategies, although the reasons for these differences remain unknown. Here, we examine the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation on a single electrode. A multidimensional scaling task, analyzed across two dimensions, suggested that pulsatile stimulation was perceived to be considerably different from analog stimulation. Two associated tasks using single-dimensional scaling showed that analog stimulation was perceived to be less Clean on average than pulsatile stimulation and that the perceptual differences were not related to pitch. In a follow-up experiment, it was determined that the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation were not dependent on the interpulse gap present in pulsatile stimulation. Although the results suggest that there is a large perceptual difference between analog and pulsatile stimulation, further work is needed to determine the nature of these differences. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2331-2165 2331-2165 |
DOI: | 10.1177/2331216518807535 |