Clinical assesment of the music perception test camp in implant users and normal- hearing subjects: a pilot study

Estudio piloto de la prueba de percepción musical camp en implantados y normoyentes

The CAMP test, created by the University ofWashington for English-speaking implant users and normal-hearing sub­ jects was evaluated in the search to provide a standardized music perception assessment for Spanish-speaking subjects. Objective: to determine administration difficulties when Spanish is the native language. Method: a cross-sectional study developed to examine three aspects of music perception: pitch discrimination threshold, melody recognition  and timbre recognition. Commands were translated into Spanish in order to run the program. Results: Five subjects were recruited three of them men (60%). The median age was 42 years (IR 40 to 43). The average time of auditory deprivation was 60 months (IR 36 to 60). The average time of implant use was 12 months (IR 6 to 108). The median for pitch discrimination by frequencies for 262 Htz was 3.61 (IR 2.17 to 4.28), for 330 Htz 3.72 (IR 2.94 to 4.28) and for 391 Htz 5.5 (IR 4.17 to 8.56). The median for melody recognition was 8.33% (IR 5.56% to 13.89%) and timbre recognition, measured by instrument recognition was 33.3% (IR 20.83% to 45.83). The control group included seven normal-hearing individuals, 4 were women (57.14%) and mean age was 31 years (IR 18 to 44). In this control group, the median for pitch discrimination by frequencies for 262 Htz was 1 (IR 0.67 to 3.39), for 330 Htz 0.94 (IR 0.5 to 4.39) and for 391 Htz O.72 (IR 0.61 to 3.22). The median for melody recognition was 69% (IR 33.33% to 83.3%) and timbre recognition was 62.5% (IR 45.8% to 75%). The majority of individuals assessed (10 out of 12) self-administered the test with no help from the examiners, ouly two required sorne assistance to handle the program, but understood it and were able to complete the test. Of the 3 musical aspects evaluated, the most difficult was melody identification. Conclusions: The CAMP test for music perception is easily applied in Spanish-speaking normal-hearing individuals and cochlear implant users when instructions translated into Spanish are available.

1. Peñaranda A, García JM, García J, Baron C. The experience in Colombia South America with Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;52(312):314.
2. Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Zhang X, Gantz B, Froman R, et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition and speech and noise. EarHear. 2007;28(3):412-28.
3. Lalwani AK, Larky JB, Wareing MJ, Kwast K, Schindler RA. The Clarion Multi­ Strategy Cochlear Implant-Surgical Technique, Complications, and Results: A Single Institutional Experience. Otology & Neurotology. 1998;19(1):66.
4. Gfeller K, Witt S, Woodworth G, Mehr MA, Knutson J. Effects of frequency, in­ strumental family, and cochlear implan! type on timbre recognition and appraisal. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology. 2002;111(4):349.
5. Limb CJ. Structural and functional neural correlates of music perception. Ana­ tomical Record Part A Discoveries in Molecular Cellular and Evolutionary Biol­ ogy. 2006;288(4):435.
6. Lassaletta L, Castro A, Bastarrica M, Pérez-Mora R,Herrbn B, Sánz L, et al. Per cepción y disfrute de la música en pacientes poslocutivos con implante coclear. Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española. 2008;59(5):228-34.
7. Zatorre RJ, Belin P. Spectral and temporal processing in human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2001;11:946-53.
8. Samson S, Zatorre RJ, Rarnsay JO. Deficits of musical timbre perceptions after unilateral temporal-lobe lesion revealed with multidimensional scaling. Brain. 2002;125:5] 1-23.
9. Liegeois-Chauvel C, Peretz 1, Babai M, Laguitton V, Chauvel P. Contribution of different cortical areas in the temporal lobes to music processing. Brain. 1998;121:1853-67.
10. Lee DJ, Chen Y, Schlaug G. Corpus callosum: musician and gender effects. Neu­ roreport. 2003;14:205-9.
11. Schlaug G, Jancke L,Huang Y, SteinmetzH. In vivo evidence of structural brain asymmetry in musicians. Science. 1995;267:699-701.
12. Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Music perception in cochlear implant us­ ers and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):779-89.
13. McDermott HJ. Music perception with coch]ear implants: a review. Trends in Amplification. 2004;8(2):49.
14. Pijl S. Musical pitch perception with pulsatile stimulation of single electrodes in patients implanted with the nucleus cochlear implant. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology Supplement. 1995; 166:224.
15. Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, Zeng FG. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear and hearing. 2004;25(2):173.
16. Kang R, Nimmons GL, Drennan W, Longnion J, Ruffin C, Nie K, et aJ. Devel­ opment and Validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of music perception test. Ear and hearing. 2009;30(4):411-8.
17. Nimmons GL, Kang RS, Drennan WR, Longnion J, Ruffin C, Worman T, et al. Clínica! assessment of music perception in cochlear implan! listeners. Otology & Neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, Ameri­ can Neurotology Society [and] European Academy ofütology and Neurotology. 2008;29(2):149.
18. Li XC, Friedman RA. Nonsyndromic hereditary hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2002 Apr;35(2):275-85.
19. Gfeller K, Oleson J, Knutson J, Breheny P, Driscoll VD, Olzewski C. Multivaria te predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. J Am Acad Audio!. 2008;19:120-34.
20. Driscoll VD, Oleson J, Jiang D, Gfeller K. Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20:71-82.
21. Galvin JJ, Fu QJ, Oba S. Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identi­ fication by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124(4):189-95.