MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066070614 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318174e787

Music Perception by Cochlear Implant and Normal Hearing Listeners as Measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia

2008· article· en· W2066070614 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsAudiologyCochlear implantPerceptionRhythmPsychologyAuditory perceptionPsychoacousticsAcousticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the utility/possibility of using the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) test (Peretz, et al., Ann N Y Acad Sci, 999, 58–75) to assess the music perception abilities of cochlear implant (CI) users. Design: The MBEA was used to measure six different aspects of music perception (Scale, Contour, Interval, Rhythm, Meter, and Melody Memory) by CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners presented with stimuli processed via CI simulations. The spectral resolution (number of channels) was varied in the CI simulations to determine: (a) the number of channels (4, 6, 8, 12, and 16) needed to achieve the highest levels of music perception and (b) the number of channels needed to produce levels of music perception performance comparable with that of CI users. Results: CI users and NH listeners performed higher on temporal-based tests (Rhythm and Meter) than on pitch-based tests (Scale, Contour, and Interval)—a finding that is consistent with previous research studies. The CI users’ scores on pitch-based tests were near chance. The CI users’ (but not NH listeners’) scores for the Memory test, a test that incorporates an integration of both temporal-based and pitch-based aspects of music, were significantly higher than the scores obtained for the pitch-based Scale test and significantly lower than the temporal-based Rhythm and Meter tests. The data from NH listeners indicated that 16 channels of stimulation did not provide the highest music perception scores and performance was as good as that obtained with 12 channels. This outcome is consistent with other studies showing that NH listeners listening to vocoded speech are not able to use effectively F0 cues present in the envelopes, even when the stimuli are processed with a large number (16) of channels. The CI user data seem to most closely match with the 4- and 6-channel NH listener conditions for the pitch-based tasks. Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, both CI users and NH listeners showed the typical pattern of music perception in which scores are higher on tests measuring the perception of temporal aspects of music (Rhythm and Meter) than spectral (pitch) aspects of music (Scale, Contour, and Interval). On that regard, the pattern of results from this study indicates that the MBEA is a suitable test for measuring various aspects of music perception by CI users. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) test to assess the music perception abilities of cochlear implant (CI) users. The MBEA was used to measure six different aspects of music perception (Scale, Contour, Interval, Rhythm, Meter, and Melody Memory) by CI users and normal hearing (NH) listeners presented with vocoded stimuli. Results showed that CI users and NH listeners performed higher on rhythmic-based tests (Rhythm and Meter) than on pitch-based tests (Scale, Contour, and Interval). The CI scores matched to the 4–6-channel scores from NH listeners.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it