Subject: CI Music Perception From: Ray Goldsworthy <raygold(at)SENS.COM> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:11:12 -0500This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C524CA.FE754860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List, I certainly agree that perception varies wildly across CI users. There = have been a number of controlled studies, and plenty of anecdotal = statements. Psychoacoustic measures can be determined as to how well a = CI user perceives the grammars of music. In the study that Bob = referenced, the best CI user out of 8 could only tell a 4 semitone = interval apart. Which is clearly insufficient for appreciating a simple = melody (let alone a complex one). Moving beyond tonal discrimination, = we could analyze the ability to recognize chord groupings and = progressions as perceived by different CI users (if at all). But even = for the poor performers of the CI world, I think we should ask if it is = possible to relearn the appreciation of music. When I first received my implant (13 yrs), I was using the F0/F1 sound = processing strategy. Speech reception was fair, but telephone discourse = difficult, music appreciation nil. I changed to the SPEAK sound = processor at 18 yrs. I still use the same processor. Speech reception is = high, telephone discourse easy, and music appreciation high. I am = willing to attribute some of my current music appreciation to = advancement in CI sound processors. But there is so much more. For one, = while working on my Ph.D., I ran a line out of my computer straight into = my processor and listen to music all day long. My colleagues envied me = because there was a ton of constuction on the floor that defeated their = best noise-cancelling headphones. Anyways, I can clearly recall my = progress in music appreciation. Beginning with tabla (which is a very = rich percussive instrument) moving to indian classical (which generally = has one or two melodic instruments and does not incorporate chords), and = then moving to jazz and beyond (can you really go beyond jazz? bluegrass = maybe). So there was definitely a relearning process. A process that = could be encouraged with CI users. I currently listen to alot of 80's = music, which is great for reprogramming my brain since I remember well = what the songs sound like). As for the noise vocoder, I agree that I can't know how it sounds to = Bob, and he can't know how it sounds to me. Bob Shannon never visited my = normal hearing childhood with CI simulation in tow. However, we can = analyze certain physical attributes of the CI simulators. For example, a = noise-excited vocoder when processed through a normal auditory filter = bank model and then subsequent envelope extraction will produce "noisy" = envelopes in the sense of having higher modulation frequency noise. But = with a cochlear implant (the real deal), the envelopes modulate their = associated pulse trains and perhaps are coded without such noise. For = example, if I played a single tone through the CI simulation, a normal = hearing listener would hear a continuously excited noise band. But an = implantee would receive a continuously excited pulse train. My area of = expertise falls off rapidly as we leave those electrodes into the = surrounding tissue and penetrating the surving auditory nerve fibers. = Yet, I can't believe that a constant pulse train delivered from a single = electrode will produce a percept near the noise band for a NH listener. = Further, the combination of firing two electrodes will certainly = interact in ways that two excited noise bands will not. Unfortunately, = to many issues here to simply meander on about, so again, I'll zip it. Anybody thought of making music tailored for CI users? If the low-end = users can only distinguish large steps, then perhaps we can compose a = new scale that only includes octaves and the associated fifths? Sensimetrics Corporation 48 Grove St. Somerville, MA 02144 Tel: 617-625-0600 x240 Fax: 617-625-6612 email: raygold(at)sens.com web: www.sens.com=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C524CA.FE754860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear List,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I certainly agree that perception = varies wildly=20 across CI users. There have been a number of controlled studies, and = plenty of=20 anecdotal statements. Psychoacoustic measures can be determined<FONT=20 face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3> as to how well a CI user perceives = the grammars=20 of music. In the study that Bob referenced, the best CI user out of = 8 could=20 only tell a 4 semitone interval apart. Which is clearly = insufficient for=20 appreciating a simple melody (let alone a complex one). Moving = beyond=20 tonal discrimination, we could analyze the ability to recognize chord = groupings=20 and progressions as perceived by different CI users (if at all). = But even=20 for the poor performers of the CI world, I think we should ask if it is = possible=20 to relearn the appreciation of music.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>When I first received my implant (13 = yrs), I was=20 using the F0/F1 sound processing strategy. Speech reception was fair, = but=20 telephone discourse difficult, music appreciation nil. I changed to the = SPEAK=20 sound processor at 18 yrs. I still use the same processor. Speech = reception is=20 high, telephone discourse easy, and music appreciation high. I am = willing=20 to attribute some of my current music appreciation to advancement in CI = sound=20 processors. But there is so much more. For one, while working on my = Ph.D., I ran=20 a line out of my computer straight into my processor and listen to music = all day=20 long. My colleagues envied me because there was a ton of constuction on = the=20 floor that defeated their best noise-cancelling headphones. Anyways, I = can=20 clearly recall my progress in music appreciation. Beginning with tabla = (which is=20 a very rich percussive instrument) moving to indian classical (which = generally=20 has one or two melodic instruments and does not incorporate chords), and = then=20 moving to jazz and beyond (can you really go beyond jazz? bluegrass = maybe). So=20 there was definitely a relearning process. A process that could be = encouraged=20 with CI users. I currently listen to alot of 80's music, which is great = for=20 reprogramming my brain since I remember well what the songs sound=20 like).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As for the noise vocoder, I agree that = I can't know=20 how it sounds to Bob, and he can't know how it sounds to me. Bob Shannon = never=20 visited my normal hearing childhood with CI simulation in tow. However, = we can=20 analyze certain physical attributes of the CI simulators. For example, a = noise-excited vocoder when processed through a normal auditory filter = bank model=20 and then subsequent envelope extraction will produce "noisy" = envelopes in=20 the sense of having higher modulation frequency noise. But with a = cochlear=20 implant (the real deal), the envelopes modulate their associated = pulse=20 trains and perhaps are coded without such noise. For example, if I = played a=20 single tone through the CI simulation, a normal hearing listener would = hear a=20 continuously excited noise band. But an implantee would receive a = continuously=20 excited pulse train. My area of expertise falls off rapidly as we leave = those=20 electrodes into the surrounding tissue and penetrating the surving = auditory=20 nerve fibers. Yet, I can't believe that a constant pulse train delivered = from a=20 single electrode will produce a percept near the noise band for a = NH=20 listener. Further, the combination of firing two electrodes will = certainly=20 interact in ways that two excited noise bands will not. Unfortunately, = to many=20 issues here to simply meander on about, so again, I'll zip = it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Anybody thought of making music = tailored for CI=20 users? If the low-end users can only distinguish large steps, then = perhaps we=20 can compose a new scale that only includes octaves and the associated=20 fifths?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sensimetrics = Corporation<BR> 48 Grove=20 St.<BR> Somerville, MA 02144<BR> Tel: = 617-625-0600=20 x240<BR> Fax: 617-625-6612<BR> email: <A=20 href=3D"mailto:raygold(at)sens.com">raygold(at)sens.com</A><BR> = web: <A=20 href=3D"http://www.sens.com">www.sens.com</A> = <BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C524CA.FE754860--