The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review
Open accessAbstract
The acceptance of cochlear implantation as an effective and safe treatment for deafness has increased steadily over the past quarter century. The earliest devices were the first implanted prostheses found to be successful in compensating partially for lost sensory function by direct electrical stimulation of nerves. Initially, the main intention was to provide limited auditory sensations to people with profound or total sensorineural hearing impairment in both ears. Although the first cochlear implants aimed to provide patients with little more than awareness of environmental sounds and some cues to assist visual speech-reading, the technology has advanced rapidly. Currently, most people with modern cochlear implant systems can understand speech using the device alone, at least in favorable listening conditions. In recent years, an increasing research effort has been directed towards implant users’ perception of nonspeech sounds, especially music. This paper reviews that research, discusses the published experimental results in terms of both psychophysical observations and device function, and concludes with some practical suggestions about how perception of music might be enhanced for implant recipients in the future. The most significant findings of past research are: (1) On average, implant users perceive rhythm about as well as listeners with normal hearing; (2) Even with technically sophisticated multiple-channel sound processors, recognition of melodies, especially without rhythmic or verbal cues, is poor, with performance at little better than chance levels for many implant users; (3) Perception of timbre, which is usually evaluated by experimental procedures that require subjects to identify musical instrument sounds, is generally unsatisfactory; (4) Implant users tend to rate the quality of musical sounds as less pleasant than listeners with normal hearing; (5) Auditory training programs that have been devised specifically to provide implant users with structured musical listening experience may improve the subjective acceptability of music that is heard through a prosthesis; (6) Pitch perception might be improved by designing innovative sound processors that use both temporal and spatial patterns of electric stimulation more effectively and precisely to overcome the inherent limitations of signal coding in existing implant systems; (7) For the growing population of implant recipients who have usable acoustic hearing, at least for low-frequency sounds, perception of music is likely to be much better with combined acoustic and electric stimulation than is typical for deaf people who rely solely on the hearing provided by their prostheses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later
Greenwood, D. D. (1990) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.399052 · Cited by 1,890
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol [Suppl].
Cw, C. (1978) · PubMed · Cited by 1,313
Better speech recognition with cochlear implants
Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/352236a0 · Cited by 1,190
Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception
Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/416087a · Cited by 873
Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres
Grey, J. M. (1977) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.381428 · Cited by 726
Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve in Man
SIMMONS, F. B. (1966) · Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/archotol.1966.00760030004003 · Cited by 613
Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System
vonIlberg, C., Kiefer, J., Tillein, J., Pfenningdorff, T., Hartmann, R., Stürzebecher, E., & Klinke, R. (1999) · ORL · doi:10.1159/000027695 · Cited by 508
Music Perception with Temporal Cues in Acoustic and Electric Hearing
Kong, Y.-Y., Cruz, R., Jones, J. A., & Zeng, F.-G. (2004) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000120365.97792.2f · Cited by 377
Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing
Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A. (2004) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1687425 · Cited by 363
Auditory Prostheses Research with Multiple Channel Intracochlear Stimulation in Man
Eddington, D. K., Dobelle, W. H., Mladejovsky, M. G., Brackmann, D. E., & Parkin, J. L. (1978) · Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology · doi:10.1177/00034894780870s602 · Cited by 334
Cited by
Technological, biological, and acoustical constraints to music perception in cochlear implant users
Limb, C. J., & Roy, A. T. (2014) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2013.04.009 · Cited by 274
Al‐Moyed, H., Cepeda, A. P., Jung, S., Moser, T., Kügler, S., & Reisinger, E. (2019) · EMBO Molecular Medicine · doi:10.15252/emmm.201809396 · Cited by 230
Development of a cortical visual neuroprosthesis for the blind: the relevance of neuroplasticity
Fernández, E., Pelayo, F., Romero, S., Bongard, M., Marin, C., Alfaro, A., & Merabet, L. (2005) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/2/4/r01 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- McDermott, H. J.
- Venue
- Trends in Amplification
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 49-82
- ISSN
- 1084-7138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105057076
- Cited by
- 549
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 4.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/108471380400800203
- The paper
- McDermott, H. J. (2004). Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review. Trends in Amplification. https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380400800203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.