title: Melodic pitch perception and lexical tone perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine the relationship between lexical tone perception and melodic pitch perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant (CI) users and to investigate the influence of previous acoustic hearing on CI users' speech and music perception.
  
  
  METHODS
  Lexical tone perception and melodic contour identification (MCI) were measured in 21 prelingual and 11 postlingual young (aged 6-26 years) Mandarin-speaking CI users. Lexical tone recognition was measured for four tonal patterns: tone 1 (flat F0), tone 2 (rising F0), tone 3 (falling-rising F0), and tone 4 (falling F0). MCI was measured using nine five-note melodic patterns that contained changes in pitch contour, as well as different semitone spacing between notes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Lexical tone recognition was generally good (overall mean = 81% correct), and there was no significant difference between subject groups. MCI performance was generally poor (mean = 23% correct). MCI performance was significantly better for postlingual (mean = 32% correct) than for prelingual CI participants (mean = 18% correct). After correcting for outliers, there was no significant correlation between lexical tone recognition and MCI performance for prelingual or postlingual CI participants. Age at deafness was significantly correlated with MCI performance only for postlingual participants. CI experience was significantly correlated with MCI performance for both prelingual and postlingual participants. Duration of deafness was significantly correlated with tone recognition only for prelingual participants.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite the prevalence of pitch cues in Mandarin, the present CI participants had great difficulty perceiving melodic pitch. The availability of amplitude and duration cues in lexical tones most likely compensated for the poor pitch perception observed with these CI listeners. Previous acoustic hearing experience seemed to benefit postlingual CI users' melodic pitch perception. Longer CI experience was associated with better MCI performance for both subject groups, suggesting that CI users' music perception may improve as they gain experience with their device.
authors.affiliation: 1Department of Otology and Skull Base Surgery, Eye Ear Nose and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; 2Division of Communication and Auditory Neuroscience, House Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; and 3Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
authors.forename: Duoduo
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Tao
authors.forename: Rui
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Deng
authors.forename: Ye
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.forename: John J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Galvin
authors.forename: Qian-Jie
authors.initials: QJ
authors.lastname: Fu
authors.forename: Bing
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001307:Auditory Perception / Q000502:physiology; D002648:Child; D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D003638:Deafness / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007804:Language Development; D008297:Male; D009146:Music; D010898:Pitch Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D013997:Time Factors; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1351-61
references.pmid: 15807023
references.citation: Hear Res. 2007 Aug;230(1-2):80-7
references.pmid: 17604582
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2008 Jun;29(3):421-34
references.pmid: 18344870
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Oct;116(4 Pt 1):2298-310
references.pmid: 15532661
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Apr;25(2):173-85
references.pmid: 15064662
references.citation: Cochlear Implants Int. 2003 Jun;4(2):85-95
references.pmid: 18792140
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2009 Apr;30(2):169-77
references.pmid: 19194297
references.citation: Trends Amplif. 2012 Jun;16(2):67-82
references.pmid: 22790392
references.citation: Nature. 1991 Jul 18;352(6332):236-8
references.pmid: 1857418
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2007 Jun;28(3):412-23
references.pmid: 17485990
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1 Suppl):49S-59S
references.pmid: 21258612
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jul;104(1):505-10
references.pmid: 9670541
references.citation: Acta Otolaryngol. 2003 Sep;123(7):826-35
references.pmid: 14575398
references.citation: Lang Speech. 1978 Oct-Dec;21(4):319-25
references.pmid: 750791
references.citation: Hear Res. 2012 Jan;283(1-2):59-69
references.pmid: 22146425
references.citation: Hear Res. 2009 Oct;256(1-2):75-84
references.pmid: 19595753
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63
references.pmid: 11519582
references.citation: Acta Otolaryngol. 1996 Mar;116(2):240-3
references.pmid: 8725523
references.citation: Trends Amplif. 2007 Dec;11(4):301-15
references.pmid: 18003871
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Oct;25(5):501-8
references.pmid: 15599196
references.citation: Hear Res. 2008 Oct;244(1-2):66-76
references.pmid: 18706497
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jul;1169:518-33
references.pmid: 19673835
references.citation: Hear Res. 2008 Jan;235(1-2):143-56
references.pmid: 18093766
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Oct;124(4):EL189-95
references.pmid: 19062785
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):87-90
references.pmid: 11882898
references.citation: Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14(5):327-37
references.pmid: 19372651
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Jun;25(3):251-64
references.pmid: 15179116
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2008 Aug;29(4):618-26
references.pmid: 18469714
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Nov;104(5):2570-7
references.pmid: 9821336
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug;118(2):1055-61
references.pmid: 16158660
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015 Feb;58(1):163-9
references.pmid: 25321148
references.citation: Acta Otolaryngol. 2007 Jul;127(7):682-6
references.pmid: 17573562
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2011 Apr;50(4):270-8
references.pmid: 21190394
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Sep;130(3):1567-80
references.pmid: 21895095
references.citation: Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2004 May;(552):50-4
references.pmid: 15219048
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 May 19;291(19):2378-80
references.pmid: 15151121
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2000 Jul-Aug;11(7):390-406
references.pmid: 10976500
references.citation: Laryngoscope. 2012 Jun;122(6):1353-60
references.pmid: 22362607
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 May;117(5):3126-38
references.pmid: 15957780
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2007 Jun;28(3):302-19
references.pmid: 17485980
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999 Jul;108(7 Pt 1):634-40
references.pmid: 10435919
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2008 Dec;29(6):957-70
references.pmid: 18818548
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2009 Aug;30(4):411-8
references.pmid: 19474735
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Mar;125(3):EL98-103
references.pmid: 19275282
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Dec;130(6):3562-5
references.pmid: 22225012
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2007 Apr;28(2 Suppl):62S-65S
references.pmid: 17496650