scholarly journals Perstimulatory Shifts in the Difference Limen for Frequency

1969 ◽  
Vol 46 (1A) ◽  
pp. 80-80
Author(s):  
Robert C. Bilger ◽  
Lawrence L. Feth ◽  
Walter H. Jesteadt
Keyword(s):  
Difference Limen ◽  
The Difference

scholarly journals Study on the Difference Limen for Flicker Values

1992 ◽  
Vol 28 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 370-371
Author(s):  
Masaharu TAKEDA ◽  
Kaoru SUZUKI ◽  
Yoshio HAYASHI
Keyword(s):  
Difference Limen ◽  
The Difference

Intraoral Air Pressure Discrimination under Conditions of Experimental Velopharyngeal Insufficiency

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-303
Author(s):  
William N. Williams ◽  
Paul W. Wharton ◽  
Martha F. Paulk ◽  
William S. Brown ◽  
Glenn E. Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Transducer ◽  
Difference Limen ◽  
Air Pressure ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Hole Size ◽  
Pressure Load ◽  
Nasal Cavities ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure ◽  
The Difference

Objective This study assessed a single subject's ability to detect the difference limen (DLs) for his self-generated intraoral air pressure while his oral and nasal cavities were experimentally coupled. Method The subject, a 46-year-old man, uses a speech bulb prosthesis to cover an unrepaired cleft of his hard and soft palates. The subject's oral and nasal cavities were experimentally coupled by drilling different size holes through the speech-bulb component of the prosthesis to approximate conditions of velopharyngeal insufficiency. There were four hole-size conditions (10, 15, 20, and 30 mm2), a no-prosthesis condition, and pre- and postbaseline conditions with the prosthesis intact. The subject blew into a tube connected to a pressure transducer and was presented with a series of paired pressure loads. The first pressure load of each pair was the referent (1, 3, or 5 cm H2O), and the second was a preselected comparator load of a different amount. The subject blew into the tube with sufficient force to center the voltage meter's needle at the zero mark. The subject then reported whether the second pressure load required more, less, or equal breath pressure, compared with the referent pressure load of that pair. Results Size of the hole coupling the oral/nasal cavities did not significantly affect the subject's difference limen. Conclusion Experimental coupling of the oral/nasal cavities did not affect this subject's ability to detect differences in his self-generated intraoral air pressure.

scholarly journals Pure tone discrimination with cochlear implants and filter-band spread

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luise Wagner ◽  
Reyhan Altindal ◽  
Stefan K. Plontke ◽  
Torsten Rahne
Keyword(s):  
Pure Tone ◽  
Difference Limen ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Corner Frequency ◽  
Center Frequency ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Tone Frequency ◽  
Frequency Bands ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Tone Discrimination

AbstractFor many cochlear implant (CI) users, frequency discrimination is still challenging. We studied the effect of frequency differences relative to the electrode frequency bands on pure tone discrimination. A single-center, prospective, controlled, psychoacoustic exploratory study was conducted in a tertiary university referral center. Thirty-four patients with Cochlear Ltd. and MED-EL CIs and 19 age-matched normal-hearing control subjects were included. Two sinusoidal tones were presented with varying frequency differences. The reference tone frequency was chosen according to the center frequency of basal or apical electrodes. Discrimination abilities were psychophysically measured in a three-interval, two-alternative, forced-choice procedure (3I-2AFC) for various CI electrodes. Hit rates were measured, particularly with respect to discrimination abilities at the corner frequency of the electrode frequency-bands. The mean rate of correct decision concerning pitch difference was about 60% for CI users and about 90% for the normal-hearing control group. In CI users, the difference limen was two semitones, while normal-hearing participants detected the difference of one semitone. No influence of the corner frequency of the CI electrodes was found. In CI users, pure tone discrimination seems to be independent of tone positions relative to the corner frequency of the electrode frequency-band. Differences of 2 semitones can be distinguished within one electrode.

Perception of Iterated Rippled Noise Periodicity in Cochlear Implant Users

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luise Wagner ◽  
Stefan K. Plontke ◽  
Torsten Rahne
Keyword(s):  
Objective Measure ◽  
Difference Limen ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Pitch Perception ◽  
Harmonic Complex ◽  
Pitch Matching ◽  
Complex Tones ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Onset Response

Pitch perception is more challenging for individuals with cochlear implants (CIs) than normal-hearing subjects because the signal processing by CIs is restricted. Processing and perceiving the periodicity of signals may contribute to pitch perception. Whether individuals with CIs can discern pitch within an iterated rippled noise (IRN) signal is still unclear. In a prospective controlled psychoacoustic study with 34 CI users and 15 normal-hearing control subjects, the difference limen between IRN signals with different numbers of iterations was measured. In 7 CI users and 15 normal-hearing control listeners with single-sided deafness, pitch matching between IRN and harmonic complex tones was measured. The pitch onset response (POR) following signal changes from white noise to IRN was measured electrophysiologically. The CI users could discriminate different numbers of iteration in IRN signals, but worse than normal-hearing listeners. A POR was measured for both normal-hearing subjects and CI users increasing with the pitch salience of the IRN. This indicates that the POR could serve as an objective measure to monitor progress during audioverbal therapy after CI surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document