Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Aug;29(4):618-26.
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318174e787.

Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia

William B Cooper et al. Ear Hear. 2008 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the utility/possibility of using the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) test (Peretz, et al., Ann N Y Acad Sci, 999, 58-75) to assess the music perception abilities of cochlear implant (CI) users.

Design: The MBEA was used to measure six different aspects of music perception (Scale, Contour, Interval, Rhythm, Meter, and Melody Memory) by CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners presented with stimuli processed via CI simulations. The spectral resolution (number of channels) was varied in the CI simulations to determine: (a) the number of channels (4, 6, 8, 12, and 16) needed to achieve the highest levels of music perception and (b) the number of channels needed to produce levels of music perception performance comparable with that of CI users.

Results: CI users and NH listeners performed higher on temporal-based tests (Rhythm and Meter) than on pitch-based tests (Scale, Contour, and Interval)--a finding that is consistent with previous research studies. The CI users' scores on pitch-based tests were near chance. The CI users' (but not NH listeners') scores for the Memory test, a test that incorporates an integration of both temporal-based and pitch-based aspects of music, were significantly higher than the scores obtained for the pitch-based Scale test and significantly lower than the temporal-based Rhythm and Meter tests. The data from NH listeners indicated that 16 channels of stimulation did not provide the highest music perception scores and performance was as good as that obtained with 12 channels. This outcome is consistent with other studies showing that NH listeners listening to vocoded speech are not able to use effectively F0 cues present in the envelopes, even when the stimuli are processed with a large number (16) of channels. The CI user data seem to most closely match with the 4- and 6-channel NH listener conditions for the pitch-based tasks.

Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, both CI users and NH listeners showed the typical pattern of music perception in which scores are higher on tests measuring the perception of temporal aspects of music (Rhythm and Meter) than spectral (pitch) aspects of music (Scale, Contour, and Interval). On that regard, the pattern of results from this study indicates that the MBEA is a suitable test for measuring various aspects of music perception by CI users.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean scores of 12 cochlear implant users on tests from the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia. Chance score is approximately 15. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Individual scores of CI users on the six musical tests.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean normal-hearing listener scores on tests from the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia. The CI users' scores are superimposed for comparison. Chance score is approximately 15. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bassim M, Buss E, Clark M, Kolln K, Pillsbury C, Pillsbury H, Buchman C. MED-EL Combi40+ cochlear implantation in adults. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(9):1568–1573. - PubMed
    1. Causey G, Hood L, Hermanson C, Bowling L. The Maryland CNC test: normative studies. Audiology. 1984;23(6):552–568. - PubMed
    1. Fujita S, Ito J. Ability of nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology. 1999;108(7 Pt 1):634–640. - PubMed
    1. Galvin J, Fu Q, Nagaki G. Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear. 2007;28:302–319. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gfeller K, Knutson J, Woodworth G, Witt S, DeBus B. Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 1998;9(1):1–19. - PubMed

Reference notes

    1. Fearn R. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New South Wales; Australia: 2001. Music and Pitch Perception of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Publication types

MeSH terms