Search

There is growing interest in whether the motor system plays an essential role in rhythm perception. The motor system is active during the perception of rhythms, but is such motor activity merely a sign of unexecuted motor planning, or does it play a causal role in shaping the perception of rhythm? We present evidence for a causal role of motor planning and simulation, and review theories of internal simulation for beat-based timing prediction. Brain stimulation studies have the potential to conclusively test if the motor system plays a causal role in beat perception and ground theories to their neural underpinnings. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Two studies examined adult cochlear implant (CI) users' ability to match auditory rhythms occurring in music to visual rhythms occurring in dance (Cha Cha, Slow Swing, Tango and Jive). In Experiment 1, adults CI users (n = 10) and hearing controls matched a music excerpt to choreographed dance sequences presented as silent videos. In Experiment 2, participants matched a silent video of a dance sequence to music excerpts. CI users were successful in detecting timing congruencies across music and dance at well above-chance levels suggesting that they were able to process distinctive auditory and visual rhythm patterns that characterized each style. However, they were better able to detect cross-modal timing congruencies when the reference was an auditory rhythm than when the reference was a visual rhythm. Learning strategies that encourage cross-modal learning of musical rhythms may have applications in developing novel rehabilitative strategies to enhance music perception and appreciation outcomes of child implant users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]