The purpose of this study was to compare postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults on timbre (tone quality) recognition and appraisal of 8 musical instruments representing 3 frequency ranges and 4 instrumental families. The implant recipients were significantly less accurate than the normal-hearing adults on timbre recognition. The implant recipients gave significantly poorer ratings than did the normal-hearing adults to those instruments played in the higher frequency range and to those from the string family. The timbre measures were weakly correlated with speech perception measures, but were significantly correlated with 3 cognitive measures of sequential processing.
StainsbyTHMcDermottHJMcKayCMClarkGM. Preliminary results on spectral shape perception and discrimination of musical sounds by normal hearing subjects and cochlear implantees. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, Sept 25–30, 1997: 11–4.
2.
GfellerKChristAKnutsonJFWittSMurrayKTTylerRS. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol2000; 11: 390–406.
3.
American Standards Acoustic Terminology. New York, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 1960: 45.
4.
GfellerKKnutsonJFWoodworthGWittSDeBusB. Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol1998; 9: 1–19.
5.
DormanMBashamKMcCandlessGDoveH. Speech understanding and music appreciation with the Ineraid cochlear implant. Hear J1991; 44: 32–7.
6.
SchultzEKerberM. Music perception with the MEDEL implants. In: Hochmair-DesoyerLJHochmairEC, eds. Advances in cochlear implants. Vienna, Austria: Manz, 1994: 326–32.
7.
FujitaSItoJ. Ability of Nucleus cochlear implantees to recognize music. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol1999; 108: 643–40.
8.
GfellerKLansingCR. Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res1991; 34: 916–20.
9.
KendallRA. The role of acoustic signal partitions in listener categorization of musical phrases. Music Perception1986; 4: 185–214.
10.
HarmonyPR. A psychoacoustical approach. New York, NY: Springer Verlag, 1989.
11.
HandelS. Timbre perception and auditory object identification. In: MooreBCJ, ed. Hearing. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1995: 425–61.
12.
WilliamDA. A study of internal validity of the Instrument Timbre Preference Test. J Res Music Music Education1996; 44: 268–77.
13.
PrattRLDoakPE. A subjective rating scale for timbre. J Sound Vibration1976; 45: 317–28.
14.
Von BismarkG. Timbre of steady sounds: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acoustica1974; 30: 146–72.
15.
TillmanTWCarhartR. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, Technical Report No. SAM-TR-66-55. Brooks Air Force Base, Tex: US AF School of Aerospace Medicine, 1966.
16.
TylerRSPreeceJPTye-MurrayN. Iowa Phoneme and Sentence Test [Laser videodisc]. Iowa City, Iowa: The University of Iowa, Department of Otolaryngology, 1986.
17.
TylerRSPreeceJPLowderMW. The Iowa Cochlear Implant Test Battery [Laser videodisc]. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, 1983.
18.
KnutsonJFHinrichsJVTylerRSGantzBJSchartzHAWoodworthG. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol1991; 100: 817–22.
19.
SimonHAKotovskyK. Human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Psychol Rev1963; 70: 543–6.
