Skip to content

Study of Quality Perception on Music in New Cochlear Implanted Subjects Using or Not a Fine Structure Strategy

Evaluation of the Impact of Coding the Fine Structure of the Sound on the Musical Perception in New Cochlear Implanted Subjects. Prospective Randomized Crossover Study.

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03993899
Enrollment
19
Registered
2019-06-21
Start date
2019-07-01
Completion date
2020-01-07
Last updated
2020-01-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral

Keywords

cochlear implant stimulation strategy sound coding strategy

Brief summary

Main objective: Show the superiority of Fine Structure (FS4) strategy compared to Continuous Interleaved Sampling (HDCIS) strategy on the qualitative preference for the listening of musical pieces. Secondary objectives * Show the superiority of FS4 strategy compared to the HDCIS strategy on the perception of musical elements (contour test). * Analyze the link between the results of musical perception tests and the subjective preference of musical listening. * Show the non inferiority of FS4 strategy compared to the HDCIS strategy on the perception of speech elements. * Analyze the link between the results of musical perception tests and the results of the perception of speech elements. * Analyze the qualitative multidimensional perception with HDCIS and FS4

Detailed description

Introduction: At present, most people with modern cochlear implant systems can understand speech using the device alone, at least under favorable listening conditions. In recent years, research has increasing focussed on how implant users perceive sounds other than speech. In particular, music perception is of interest. A review of the literature on musical perception with traditional implants, coding only the temporal envelope \[McDermott 2004\], revealed the following elements: * On average, implant users perceive the rhythm approximately as well as listeners with normal hearing * With technically sophisticated multi-channel sound processors, melody recognition, especially without rhythmic or verbal cues, is poor. * The perception of timbre, especially the sounds of musical instruments, is generally unsatisfactory. * Implant users tend to rate the quality of musical sounds as less enjoyable than listeners with normal hearing And studies show that the fine structure of sound is the main vector of information for music and the location of sounds. \[Smith et al. 2002\] It therefore seems necessary to focus on the contribution of the coding of the fine temporal structure of sound to the cochlear implant. Main objective: Show the superiority of FS4 strategy compared to HDCIS strategy on the qualitative preference for the listening of musical pieces. Secondary objectives: * Show the superiority of FS4 strategy compared to the HDCIS strategy on the perception of musical elements (contour test). * Analyze the link between the results of musical perception tests and the subjective preference of musical listening. * Show the non inferiority of FS4 strategy compared to the HDCIS strategy on the perception of speech elements. * Analyze the link between the results of musical perception tests and the results of the perception of speech elements. * Analyze the qualitative multidimensional perception with HDCIS and FS4 Plan of the study: It is a prospective open monocentric randomized crossover study: measures will be done on the patient at 15 days and 30 days post-activation.

Interventions

DEVICEFineHearing strategy or HDCIS strategy

Cochlear implant with FineHearing strategy or HDCIS strategy

Sponsors

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Masking description

Double blind study: the patient and the investigator don't know the strategy

Intervention model description

two arms A and B: Arm A: patient's fitting with strategy FS4 --\> 15 days use --\> tests and patient's fitting with strategy HDCIS --\> 15 days use --\> tests Arm B: patient's fitting with strategy HDCIS --\> 15 days use --\> tests and patient's fitting with strategy FS4 --\> 15 days use --\> tests

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adult patient (≥ 18 years old) speaking French * Patient who fulfils the criteria for cochlear implantation

Exclusion criteria

\- Retro-cochlear pathology: auditory neuropathy, vestibular schwannoma

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Qualitative measure of musicat 15 days post-activationThe Gabrielsson scale (1988) is used to evaluate perceived sound quality as a multidimensional phenomenon, that is composed of a number of separate perceptual dimensions. Eight perceptual dimensions are evaluated: clarity, fullness, brightness vs dullness, hardness/sharpness vs softness, spaciousness, nearness, extraneous sounds, loudness. Visual analog scales (VAS) are used for each dimension and the patient has to score the dimension on a 10 cm VAS (between 0 to 10).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Speech recognition in quietat 15 days post-activationThe speech recognition in quiet is evaluated with syllabic list of 40 phonemes. The patient has to recognize 21 syllables. The phonemes are scored: each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).
Differential frequency thresholdat 15 days post-activationThis test aimed to determine the smallest perceptible difference in F0 between two stimuli for various baseline values of F0. An adaptive procedure is used.
Melodic contour testat 15 days post-activationThe test stimuli of the melodic contour test (Galvin et al. 2007) are melodic contours composed of 5 notes of equal duration whose frequencies corresponded to musical intervals. Nine distinct musical patterns have to be identified by the patient. Each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).

Countries

France

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026