Sequential stream segregation by normal hearing (NH) and cochlear implant (CI) listeners was investigated using an irregular rhythm detection (IRD) task. Pure tones and narrowband noises of different bandwidths were presented monaurally to older and younger NH listeners via headphones. For CI users, stimuli were delivered as pure tones via soundfield and via direct electrical stimulation. Results confirmed that tonal pitch is not essential for stream segregation by NH listeners and that aging does not reduce NH listeners' stream segregation. CI listeners' stream segregation was significantly poorer than NH listeners' with pure tone stimuli. With direct stimulation, however, CI listeners showed significantly stronger stream segregation, with a mean normalized pattern similar to NH listeners, implying that the CI speech processors possibly degraded acoustic cues. CI listeners' performance on an electrode discrimination task indicated that cues that are salient enough to make two electrodes highly discriminable may not be sufficiently salient for stream segregation, and that gap detection/discrimination, which must depend on perceptual electrode differences, did not play a role in the IRD task. Although the IRD task does not encompass all aspects of full stream segregation, these results suggest that some CI listeners may demonstrate aspects of stream segregation.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#24,400,915
of 33,977,172 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
#11,208
of 13,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#318,366
of 463,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
#42
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,977,172 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 463,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
