Music Training Or Focused Music Listening For Cochlear Implant Recipients? ValerieLooi1,YuhanWong2,JennyLoo2

1.SCICCochlearImplantProgram–AnRIDBCService,Australia2.NaFonalUniversitySingapore,Singapore.

Toronto,2016

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.

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.

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).

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.

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)

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?”).

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Looi et al., 2016)

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)

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.

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), 132-145

•  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: 6286514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6286514

•  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), 257-268.

•  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), 421-434.

•  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), 503-518.

•  Looi, V., Gfeller, K., & Driscoll, V. (2012). Music Appreciation and Training for Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Review. Semin Hear, 33(4), 307-334.

•  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), 361-380.

MTP group FML group1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit

MTB (%)

PR ½ oct. 71.7 (15.4)

71.7 (19.0)

68.3 (19.7)

71.7 (7.45)

70.0 (18.7)

71.7 (12.3)

PR ¼ oct. 67.5 (18.6)

61.3 (27.0)

60.6 (23.5)

54.4 (15.7)

60.6 (17.9)

54.4 (21.9)

Inst. ID 60.6 (15.4)

64.7 (14.6)

70.8 (16.0)

60.8 (10.6)

68.8 (12.6)

72.1 (8.79)

Ensemble ID 39.3 (15.8)

48.1 (19.3)

47.9 (19.0)

41.3 (2.62)

41.5 (10.6)

43.8 (7.24)

Style ID 39.8 (6.38)

56.5 (22.0)

46.7 (24.5)

53.7 (17.5)

54.5 (22.1)

40.0 (23.5)

MQRT Ave1-3 (/100)

54.5 (7.79)

63.5 (9.89)

68.8 (9.88)

63.1 (12.3)

60.6 (16.7)

59.7 (17.9)

Ave 4-6 (/50)

5.0 (5.26)

5.5 (5.12)

14.6 (18.0)

5.6 (7.16)

7.1 (10.9)

7.5 (5.29)

BKB-SIN

SNR-50 16.20 (5.05)

15.15 (5.02)

15.30 (4.85)

16.60 (3.54)

15.15 (1.86)

15.85 (2.97)