Music Training Or Focused Music Listening For Cochlear Implant Recipients?

Transcription

1 Music Training Or Focused Music Listening For Cochlear Implant Recipients? Valerie Looi 1, Yuhan Wong 2, Jenny Loo 2 1. SCIC Cochlear Implant Program An RIDBC Service, Australia 2. NaFonal University Singapore, Singapore. Toronto, 2016

2 Introduction CI recipients â perceptual accuracy for music. Music less enjoyable post-ci than NH. Music perception and enjoyment can be improved through targeted training (Looi et al., 2012). Besides training, focused music listening (FML) also suggested to help, but yet to be a study comparing music training to FML. (Gfeller et al., 2002; Looi et al., 2012). Training program - more structure, feedback & guidance. FML - greater flexibility and personalisation.

3 This study Aim: To compare the effectiveness of a computer-based music appreciation training program (MATP) to FML for improving music perception and enjoyment in postlingually deafened CI recipients.

4 Participants 10 CI recipients postlingually deafened, at least 6mths CI use, fluent in English, Singaporean residents. Randomly allocated to either: Training (MATP) or Focused Music Listening (FML) 5 - MATP (age 13-31y; M = 26y) 5 FML (age 15-46; M= 24y). All devices (5 Cochlear, 3 MED-EL, 2 AB).

5 Training Program (MATP) Take-home, computer-based auditory training program developed by Looi, King, Kelly-Campbell, et al. (2012) 3 modules Single Instruments, Ensembles, Music Styles. Program automatically datalogs use and results.

6 MATP Stimuli Module 1 Solo Inst Module 2 Ensembles Module 3 Musical Styles Piano Violin Cello Flute Clarinet Trumpet Trombone Xylophone Drum kit Guitar Male singer Female singer Brass band Choir Duets instrumental Duets voice + piano Instrument + orch Jazz band Orchestra Rock band String quartet Voice + orchestra Classical solo Classical small group Classical large group Country and Western Eastern Jazz Modern/pop (1990s on)

7 Focused Music Listening Listen to music for = amount time MATP group trained. To avoid passive listening questions to answer. Covered: music features (e.g. what was the mood? ); instrumentation (e.g. how many instruments/voices? ); and subjective appraisal (e.g. what did you like/dislike? ).

8 Test Materials - MTB MTB Music Test Battery. Administered pre & post training/ listening. All tests used in prior studies. Pitch Ranking (PR) 2AFC, ½ & ¼ octave intervals. (Looi et al, 2008a,b, 2012) Single Instrument ID 12 inst., 12AFC (Looi at al., 2008a,b, 2012). Music Ensemble ID 12 ensembles, 12AFC (Looi et al., 2008a,b, 2012). Music Style ID 6 common styles, 6AFC (Looi et al., 2012) Music Quality Rating - 8 pieces, 4 genres. 6 scales per piece. (Looi et al., 2011) Speech in Noise (BKB-SIN)- 2 lists. BKB sentences; 4-talker babble. (Etymotic Research)

9 Procedure 8 weeks; 4x 30-min sessions p/wk. MATP group: 2 wks each for modules 1, 2 & 3 (in that order), then 2 wks own choice. FML group: No specification on type of music, # pieces per session, genre or listening mode. Only requirement listen to each piece twice & answer questions. (Looi et al., 2016)

10 Procedure 2 periods control (2-4 wks) & training/fml (8 wks). MTB administered: i) before control period, ii) after control period before training/fml, iii) after training/fml. All MTB stimuli presented from a single loudspeaker. (Looi et al., 2016)

11 Results MATP group: Mean 618 of 960 mins training. Note: 2/5 participants forgot to save some sessions to the data log. FML group: Mean 925 of 960 mins. Note: 1 participant didn t submit listening diary. Analysis of FML listening diaries - Most popular genre: English modern pop. (Looi et al., 2016)

12 (Looi et al., 2016)

13 Discussion & Conclusions MATP significant á single inst. ID. MATP - Greater degree á in quality ratings than FML. FML substantial improvements observed for some recipients. Large degree individual variability. Compliance better for FML. Indicates potential of both approaches to help music listening; different degree for different people. Suggest: Combine a music training program with FML. (Looi et al., 2016)

14 Acknowledgements Funding: Cochlear Ltd, Advanced Bionics and MED-EL. Joe Chee for MATP program modifications. Theam Yong Chiew for original MATP program. Dr Alex Cook for statistical advice. Dr Wai Kong Lai for the Macarena software. Edmund Choo for help with test set up. Audiologists at National University Hospital Audiology Clinic for help with recruitment. Participants.

15 References Gfeller, K., Witt, S., Adamek, M., Mehr, M., Rogers, J., Stordahl, J et al. (2002). Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol, 13(3), Looi, V; Wong, Y & Loo, J. (2016). The Effects of Training on Music Perception and Appreciation for Cochlear Implant Recipients. Advances in Otolaryngology. Article ID: Looi, V., McDermott, H., McKay, C., & Hickson, L. (2008a). The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception by adults with usable pre-operative acoustic hearing. Int J Audiol, 47(5), Looi, V., McDermott, H., McKay, C., & Hickson, L. (2008b). Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 29(3), Looi, V., Winter, P., Anderson, I., & Sucher, C. (2011). A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation. Int J Audiol, 50(8), Looi, V., Gfeller, K., & Driscoll, V. (2012). Music Appreciation and Training for Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Review. Semin Hear, 33(4), Looi, V., Kelly-Campbell, R., & King, J. (2012). A Music Appreciation Training Program Developed for Clinical Application with Cochlear Implant Recipients and Hearing Aid Users. Semin Hear,33(04),

16

17 MTP group MTB (%) PR ½ oct. PR ¼ oct. Inst. ID Ensemble ID Style ID MQRT BKBSIN Ave1-3 (/100) FML group 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit (15.4) (19.0) (19.7) (7.45) (18.7) (12.3) (18.6) (27.0) (23.5) (15.7) (17.9) (21.9) (15.4) (14.6) (16.0) (10.6) (12.6) (8.79) (15.8) (19.3) (19.0) (2.62) (10.6) (7.24) (6.38) (22.0) (24.5) (17.5) (22.1) (23.5) (7.79) (9.89) (9.88) (12.3) (16.7) (17.9) Ave 4-6 (/50) (5.26) (5.12) (18.0) (7.16) (10.9) (5.29) SNR (5.05) (5.02) (4.85) (3.54) (1.86) (2.97)