首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>JARO: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology >Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear
【2h】

Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear

机译:耳蜗植入物的电刺激与正常听对侧耳朵的声学刺激之间的音高比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Four cochlear implant users, having normal hearing in the unimplanted ear, compared the pitches of electrical and acoustic stimuli presented to the two ears. Comparisons were between 1,031-pps pulse trains and pure tones or between 12 and 25-pps electric pulse trains and bandpass-filtered acoustic pulse trains of the same rate. Three methods—pitch adjustment, constant stimuli, and interleaved adaptive procedures—were used. For all methods, we showed that the results can be strongly influenced by non-sensory biases arising from the range of acoustic stimuli presented, and proposed a series of checks that should be made to alert the experimenter to those biases. We then showed that the results of comparisons that survived these checks do not deviate consistently from the predictions of a widely-used cochlear frequency-to-place formula or of a computational cochlear model. We also demonstrate that substantial range effects occur with other widely used experimental methods, even for normal-hearing listeners.
机译:在未植入的耳朵中听力正常的四个人工耳蜗使用者比较了两只耳朵的电刺激和声刺激的音调。比较是在1,031-pps脉冲序列和纯音之间,或在12至25-pps的电脉冲序列和带通滤波的相同速率的脉冲序列之间。使用了三种方法-音调调整,恒定刺激和交错式自适应程序。对于所有方法,我们都表明,结果可能会受到所呈现的声刺激范围引起的非感官偏差的强烈影响,并提出了一系列应提醒实验者注意这些偏差的检查方法。然后,我们表明在这些检查中幸存下来的比较结果并没有始终与广泛使用的耳蜗频率到位置公式或计算耳蜗模型的预测不一致。我们还证明,即使对于听力正常的听众,其他广泛使用的实验方法也会产生较大的音域影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号