Search

Conclusion: Whilst objective testing on music perception showed no individual differences between cochlear implant (CI) devices, subjective music perception was found to be superior with the MED-EL device in the majority of cases evaluated. Objective: To compare speech and music perception through two different CI systems in the same individuals. Methods: Six post-lingually deaf patients, who had been implanted with a Cochlear™ Nucleus® device in one ear and a MED-EL SONATATI100 on the contralateral side were evaluated. One subject was excluded from group analysis because of significant differences in performance between ears. Subjects completed a questionnaire designed to assess implant users' listening habits. Subjective assessments of each subject were made for comparison of speech and music perception with each system and preferences of system. The subjects consecutively used each system with the contralateral device turned off, and were objectively assessed for specific musical skills. Speech perception in quiet and in noise was tested. Results: For all objective tests of music discrimination and speech perception in noise, there were no statistically significant differences between MED-EL and Cochlear CI systems. Subjectively, four subjects thought their MED-EL device was better than their Cochlear device for music appreciation. Four thought that music sounded more natural, less tinny and more reverberant with their MED-EL CI than with their Cochlear CI. One subject rated all these to be equal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was undertaken to evaluate the musical sounds in cochlear implants (MuSIC) perception test, created to assess the music-listening abilities of cochlear implant (CI) users. Thirty-one unilateral MED-EL COMBI 40+/PULSARCI100 users and a control group of 67 adults with normal hearing (NH) participated. The MuSIC test comprises six objective and two subjective modules employing approximately 2800 musical files recorded from non-synthesized instruments. A subset was used for comparing CI and NH participants' results. CI and NH participants performed significantly differently on: pitch discrimination, melody discrimination, chord discrimination, instrument detection, and instrument identification. No significant difference in performance was seen on the subtests of rhythm discrimination or dissonance rating and emotion rating. The MuSIC test was found to be a valuable tool for assessing music perception in CI users and NH participants, whether investigating one aspect of music perception in depth or conducting a broad survey of music perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]