Musical training software for children with cochlear implants

W Di Nardo, L Schinaia, R Anzivino, E De Corso, A Ciacciarelli, G Paludetti, W Di Nardo, L Schinaia, R Anzivino, E De Corso, A Ciacciarelli, G Paludetti

Abstract

Although the voice in a free field has an excellent recruitment by a cochlear implant (CI), the situation is different for music because it is a much more complex process, where perceiving the pitch discrimination becomes important to appreciate it. The aim of this study is to determine the music perception abilities among children with Cis and to verify the benefit of a training period for specific musical frequency discrimination. Our main goals were to prepare a computer tool for pitch discrimination training and to assess musical improvements. Ten children, aged between 5 and 12 years, with optimal phoneme recognition in quiet and with no disabilities associated with deafness, were selected to join the training. Each patient received, before training period, two types of exams: a pitch discrimination test, consisting of discovering if two notes were different or not; and a music test consisting of two identification tasks (melodic and full version) of one music-item among 5 popular childhood songs. After assessment, a music training software was designed and utilised individually at home for a period of six months. The results following complete training showed significantly higher performance in the task of frequency discrimination. After a proper musical training identification, frequency discrimination performance was significantly higher (p < 0.001). The same considerations can be made in the identification of the songs presented in their melodic (p = 0.0151) and full songs version (p = 0.0071). Cases where children did not reach the most difficult level may be due to insufficient time devoted to training (ideal time estimated at 2-3 hours per week). In conclusion, this study shows that is possible to assess musical enhancement and to achieve improvements in frequency discrimination, following pitch discrimination training.

Keywords: Children; Cochlear implants; Music Test battery; Music perception; Speech perception.

Figures

Fig. 1a-b.
Fig. 1a-b.
Distribution of frequency bands of the strategy encodes. Histogram shows the distribution of frequency bandwidths on each electrode, which is in proportion to the cochlear tonotopicity following the placement of the electrodes. The second curve represents the frequency range transduced by the implant according to the distribution of the bands set in the histogram. Data were extrapolated from the stimulation of the mapping software of the processor for each patient. In this case, it shows the frequency distribution of patient C1.
Fig. 1a-b.
Fig. 1a-b.
Distribution of frequency bands of the strategy encodes. Histogram shows the distribution of frequency bandwidths on each electrode, which is in proportion to the cochlear tonotopicity following the placement of the electrodes. The second curve represents the frequency range transduced by the implant according to the distribution of the bands set in the histogram. Data were extrapolated from the stimulation of the mapping software of the processor for each patient. In this case, it shows the frequency distribution of patient C1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Comparison between overall scores before and after musical training in the music test. We checked the validity of the melody and full version test, on 10 normal hearing patients, all of whom scored between 95 and 100%.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Box plot of results: The box-plot represents the distribution of levels, of the MPD test, achieved by patient, before and after musical training (p

Fig. 4.

Comparison between scores before and…

Fig. 4.

Comparison between scores before and after musical training in the MPD test. We…

Fig. 4.
Comparison between scores before and after musical training in the MPD test. We checked the validity of music training program, based on the MPD test, on 10 normal hearing patients, all of whom achieved the 7th level without any problem.

Fig. 5a-b.

Music Test – Melodic version:…

Fig. 5a-b.

Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison…

Fig. 5a-b.
Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score (p = 0.0151).

Fig. 5a-b.

Music Test – Melodic version:…

Fig. 5a-b.

Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison…

Fig. 5a-b.
Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score (p = 0.0151).

Fig. 6a-b.

Music Test – Full songs…

Fig. 6a-b.

Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean,…

Fig. 6a-b.
Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score. (p = 0.0071).

Fig. 6a-b.

Music Test – Full songs…

Fig. 6a-b.

Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean,…

Fig. 6a-b.
Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score. (p = 0.0071).
All figures (9)
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Comparison between scores before and after musical training in the MPD test. We checked the validity of music training program, based on the MPD test, on 10 normal hearing patients, all of whom achieved the 7th level without any problem.
Fig. 5a-b.
Fig. 5a-b.
Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score (p = 0.0151).
Fig. 5a-b.
Fig. 5a-b.
Music Test – Melodic version: representation of preand post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score (p = 0.0151).
Fig. 6a-b.
Fig. 6a-b.
Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score. (p = 0.0071).
Fig. 6a-b.
Fig. 6a-b.
Music Test – Full songs version: representation of pre- and post-training score mean, in comparison with normal hearing subjects. The box-plot shows the distribution of score. (p = 0.0071).

References

    1. Berrettini S, Baggiani A, Bruschini L, et al. Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in adult patients. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011;31:299–310.
    1. Forli F, Arslan E, Bellelli S, et al. Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in paediatric patients. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011;31:281–298.
    1. Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, et al. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear. 2004;25:173–185.
    1. McKay CM, Henshall KR, Hull AE. The effect of rate stimulation on perception of spectral shape by cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc Am. 2005;118:386–392.
    1. Nardo W, Scorpecci A, Giannantonio S, et al. Cochlear implant patients' speech understanding in background noise: effect of mismatch between electrode assigned frequencies and perceived pitch. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2010;124:828–834.
    1. Nardo W, Cantore I, Marchese MR, et al. Electric to acoustic pitch matching: a possible way to improve individual cochlear implant fitting. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;265:1321–1328.
    1. Boex C, Baud L, Cosendai G, et al. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlea implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006;7:110–124.
    1. Oxenham AJ, Bernstein JG, Penagos H. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:1421–1425.
    1. Fuller CD, Galvin JJ, Bertmaat, et al. The musician effect: does it persist underdegraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations? Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2014;8:1–16. (Article 179)
    1. Besson M, Schon D, Moreno S, et al. Influence of musical expertise and musical training on pitch processing in music and language. 2007;25:399–410.
    1. Magne C, Schon D, Besson M. Musician children detect pitch violations in both music and language better than non-music children: behavioral and electrophysiological approaches. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008;18:199–211.
    1. Musacchia G, Sams M, Skoe E, et al. Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:15894–15898.
    1. Tervaniemi M, Castaneda A, Knoll M, et al. Sound processing in amateur musicians and nonmusicians: eventrelated potential and behavioral indices. Neuroreport. 2006;31:1225–1228. 17.
    1. Gaab N, Tallal P, Kim H, et al. Neural correlates of rapid spectrotemporal processing in musicians versus non-musicians. Amm NY Acad Sci. 2005;10060:82–88.
    1. Gfeller K, Lansing Cr. Melodic, rythmic, and timbral reception of adult coclea implant users. J Speech Hear Res. 2005;34:916–920.
    1. Galvin JJ, II, Fu OJ, Nogaki G. Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear. 2007;28:302–319.
    1. Cooper WB, Tobey E, Loizou PC. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners measured by the Montreal battery for evaluation of amusia. Ear Hear. 2008;29:618–626.
    1. Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, et al. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear. 2004;25:173–185.
    1. Zeng FG, Tang Q, Lu T. Abnormal pitch perception produced by cochlear implant stimulation. Plos One February. 2014;9:e88662–e88662.
    1. Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, et al. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear. Hear. 2008;29:421–434.
    1. Pressnitzer D, Bestel J, Fraysse B. Music to electric ears: pitch and timbre perception by cochlear implant patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005;1060:343–345.
    1. Singh S, Kong YY, Zeng FG. Cochlear implant melody recognition as a function of melody frequency range, harmonicity, and number of electrodes. Ear Hear. 2009;30:160–168.
    1. Fujita S, Ito J. Ability of nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;108:634–640.
    1. Sucher CM, Mc Dermott HJ. Pitch ranking of complex tones by normally hearing subjects and cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2007;230:80–87.
    1. Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech perception in noise. Ear Hear. 2007;28:412–423.
    1. Stordahl J. Song recognition and appraisal: a comparison of children who use cochlear implants and normally hearing children. J. Music Ther. 2002;39:2–19.
    1. Anvari SH, Trainor LJ, Woodside J, et al. Relations among musical skills, phonological processing, and early reading ability in preschool children. J Exp Child Psychol. 2002;83:111–130.
    1. Roy A, Scattergood-Keeper L, Carver C, et al. Evaluation of a test battery to assess perception of music in children with cochlear implants. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Apr 10; [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Yucel E, Sennaroglu G, Belgin E. The family oriented musical training for children with cochlear implants: Speech and musical perception results of two year follow-up. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73:1043–1052.
    1. Dastgheib SS, Riyassi M, Anvari M, et al. Music training program: a method based on language development and principles of neuroscience to optimize speech and language skills in hearing-impaired children. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;25:91–95.
    1. Looi V, Winter P, Anderson I, et al. 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.
    1. Gfeller K, Wilson BS, Schatzer R, et al. Two new directions in speech processor design for cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2005;26:73–81.
    1. Nardo W, Scorpecci A, Giannantonio S, et al. Improving melody recognition in cochlear implant recipients through individualized frequency map fitting. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:27–39.
    1. Pelliccia P, Venail F, Bonafé A, et al. Cochlea size variability and implications in clinical practice. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014;34:42–49.
    1. Mancini P, Bosco E, D'agosta L, et al. Implementation of perceptual channels in children implanted with a HiRes 90K device. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129:1442–1450.
    1. Nardo W, Cantore I, Cianfrone F. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127:370–377.
    1. Bruce J, Gantz MD, Christopher Turner, et al. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:796–802.
    1. Durham D, Park DL, Girod DA. Central nervous system plasticity during hair cell loss and regeneration. Hear Res. 2000;147:145–159.
    1. Nardo W, Giannantonio S, Giuda D, et al. Role of auditory brain function assessment by SPECT in cochlear implant side selection. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2013;33:23–28.
    1. Guiraud J, Besle J, Arnold L, et al. Evidence of a tonotopic organization of the auditory cortex in cochlear implant users. J Neurosci. 2007;27:7838–7846.
    1. Pantev C, Oostenveld R, Engelien A, et al. Increased auditory cortical representation in musicians. Nature. 1998;392:811–814.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren