Download PDF
Semin Hear 2012; 33(04): 335-345
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1329223
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Music for the Cochlear Implant: Audience Response to Six Commissioned Compositions

Agnes Au
1   The Bionics Institute
2   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
,
Jeremy Marozeau
1   The Bionics Institute
,
Hamish Innes-Brown
1   The Bionics Institute
,
Emery Schubert A/Prof.
3   School of English, Media, and Performing Arts, University of New South Wales
,
Catherine J. Stevens Prof.
4   MARCS Institute & School of Social Sciences & Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 November 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Although cochlear implant (CI) users enjoy good speech understanding, music perception is still difficult or unpleasant for many. This study aimed to assess cognitive, engagement, and auditory responses to new music composed specifically for CI users. From 407 concertgoers who completed a questionnaire, responses from groups of normally hearing listeners (n = 44) and CI users (n = 44), matched in age and musical ability, were compared to determine whether specially commissioned works would elicit similar responses from both groups. No significant group differences were found on measures of interest, enjoyment, and musicality, whereas ratings of understanding and instrument localization and recognition were significantly lower for CI users. Overall, ratings of the music were typically higher for percussion pieces. The concert successfully elicited similar responses from both groups in terms of interest, enjoyment, and musicality, although technical aspects, such as understanding, localization, and instrument identification, continue to be problematic for CI users.

Keywords

Hearing loss - cochlear implant - music appreciation
 

  • References

  • 1 Wilson BS. Cochlear implant technology. In: Kirk KI, Niparko JK, Mellon NK, Robbins AM, Tucci DL, Wilson BS, , eds. Cochlear Implants: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000: 109-118
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gfeller K, Olszewski C, Rychener M , et al. Recognition of “real-world” musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 237-250
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Leal MC, Shin YJ, Laborde ML , et al. Music perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol 2003; 123: 826-835
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Driscoll VD, Oleson J, Jiang D, Gfeller K. Effects of training on recognition of musical instruments presented through cochlear implant simulations. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20: 71-82
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Mirza S, Douglas SA, Lindsey P, Hildreth T, Hawthorne M. Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: a patient questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int 2003; 4: 85-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson JF, Witt S, Murray KT, Tyler RS. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 390-406
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Migirov L, Kronenberg J, Henkin Y. Self-reported listening habits and enjoyment of music among adult cochlear implant recipients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009; 118: 350-355
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Gfeller K, Lansing CR. Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 916-920
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J , et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gfeller K, Woodworth G, Robin DA, Witt S, Knutson JF. Perception of rhythmic and sequential pitch patterns by normally hearing adults and adult cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 252-260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, Zeng FG. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 173-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gfeller K, Witt S, Woodworth G, Mehr MA, Knutson J. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111: 349-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 2004; 8: 49-82
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Laneau J, Wouters J, Moonen M. Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 3606-3619
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Looi V, McDermott HJ, McKay C, Hickson L. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 421-434
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gfeller K, Witt S, Adamek M , et al. Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13: 132-145
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Gfeller K, Witt S, Woodworth G, Mehr MA, Knutson JF. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111: 349-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kang R, Nimmons GL, Drennan WR , et al. Development and validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception test. Ear Hear 2009; 30: 411-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Innes-Brown H, Marozeau J, Blamey P. The effect of visual cues on difficulty ratings for segregation of musical streams in listeners with impaired hearing. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e29327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Plant G. “NOISE CARRIERS”: Music for adults with cochlear implants. Available at: http://www.medel.com/data/downloads/BRIDGE/Listen_Hear_Newsletter/Listen-Hear-20.pdf . Accessed June 28, 2011
    PubMed
  • 21 Plant G. “Deacon”: A new music work for adults with cochlear implants. Available at: http://www.medel.com/data/downloads/BRIDGE/Listen_Hear_Newsletter/Listen-Hear-26.pdf . Accessed June 28, 2011
    PubMed
  • 22 Glass R. Observer response to contemporary dance. In: Grove R, Stevens C, McKechnie S, , eds. Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press; 2005: 107-121
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Glass R. The Audience Response Tool (A.R.T.): The Impact of Choreographic Intention, Information and Dance Expertise on Psychological Reactions to Contemporary Dance. Sydney, Australia: MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney; 2006
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Stevens CJ, Glass R, Schubert E, Chen J, Winskel H. Methods for measuring audience reactions. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science; Sydney, Australia, December 5–7, 2007
    PubMed
  • 25 Hermann T, Hunt A, Neuhoff JG. The Sonification Handbook. Berlin, Germany: Logos Publishing House; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Looi V, McDermott HJ, McKay C, Hickson L. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception by adults with usable pre-operative acoustic hearing. Int J Audiol 2008; 47: 257-268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kong YY, Mullangi A, Marozeau J, Epstein M. Temporal and spectral cues for musical timbre perception in electric hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54: 981-994
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Heng J, Cantarero G, Elhilali M, Limb CJ. Impaired perception of temporal fine structure and musical timbre in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2011; 280: 192-200
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Rahne T, Böhme L, Götze G. Timbre discrimination in cochlear implant users and normal hearing subjects using cross-faded synthetic tones. J Neurosci Methods 2011; 199: 290-295
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Schubert E. Affective, evaluative and collative responses to hated and loved music. Psychol Aesthetics Creativity Arts 2010; 4: 36-46
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Mull HK. The effect of repetition upon the enjoyment of modern music. J Psychol 1957; 43: 155-162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Peretz I, Gaudreau D, Bonnel AM. Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Mem Cognit 1998; 26: 884-902
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Pereira CS, Teixeira J, Figueiredo P, Xavier J, Castro SL, Brattico E. Music and emotions in the brain: familiarity matters. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e27241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Looi V, Winter P, Anderson I, Sucher C. A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 503-518
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 30
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar