Comparison of Musical Activities of Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech-Coding Strategies Steffi Johanna Brockmeier, Mary Grasmeder, Susanna Passow, Deborah Mawmann, Mattheus Vischer, Alexandra Jappel, Wolfgang Baumgartner, Thomas Stark, Joachim Mu ¨ ller, S. Brill, Thomas Steffens, Ju ¨ rgen Strutz, Jan Kiefer, Uwe Baumann, and Wolfgang Arnold Speech coding might have an impact on music per- ception of cochlear implant users. This question- naire study compares the musical activities and perception of postlingually deafened cochlear im- plant users with three different coding strategies (CIS, ACE, SPEAK) using the Munich Music Ques- tionnaire. Overall, the self-reported perception of music of CIS, SPEAK, and ACE users did not differ by very much. (Ear & Hearing 2007;28;49S–51S) Music plays an important role in the life of normally hearing subjects. It has the potential to restore and sustain mental health and is used for entertainment, enjoyment, and relaxation (Pank- seep, 1995). Also cochlear implant users feel that the ability to listen to music is an important issue after the improvement of speech perception (Gfeller, Tuner, & Mehr, et al., 2002). A previous study found that 65% of unilaterally implanted subjects using the Combi 40/40+ re- ported listening to music regularly (Brockmeier et al., 2002). Fifty-one percent of this group described musical sounds through their implant as natural and 31% described them as pleasant. Most users enjoy listening to a wide variety of musical instru- ments and have listened to music in a number of listening environments (Brockmeier et al., 2002). Unilaterally implanted Combi40/40+ users prefer listening to simply structured music such as folk and pop (Brockmeier et al., 2002), whereas Gfeller et al. (2000) showed that in general the same musical styles are enjoyed before and after implantation. The results of Smith, Delgutte, & Oxhanham (2002) suggest that that a signal fine structure carries more information for music perception than does the sig- nal’s envelope structure. Therefore, we would expect that those coding strategies that provide more fine structure information (e.g., via higher stimulation rates, enhance musical enjoyment, and increase musi- cal activities). The questionnaire study described here compared musical activities and perception of compa- rable groups of implant recipients with the CIS, ACE, and SPEAK speech coding strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS The questionnaire used for this study, the Munich Music Questionnaire, was developed by the author after interviewing implant users about their musical interests and activities (Brockmeier et al., 2002). The questionnaire includes sections covering past and present music activities such as listening to music, playing an instrument, and singing. Informa- tion was collected on implant users’ enjoyment of various types of music, different musical instru- ments, songs, and the amount of participation in musical activities at different times in the partici- pant’s life. Different styles of music were included: classical, religious, folk, hits, rock/pop, opera, jazz/ blues, and techno. These styles were chosen to cover the whole range of structural characteristics found in music such as rhythm, harmonics, melody, and instrumentation, which are present in the music that is mostly listened to by the general population. Patients were asked to indicate which of the follow- ing instruments they can identify: violin, guitar, flute, clarinet, kettle drum, trumpet, tuba, cymbals. These instruments represent different methods of sound production and a different frequency range. Information was gathered concerning the purpose and quality of listening to music. In addition, im- pressions of the different components of music, which can be heard through a cochlear implant, were collected. Additional questions included the listening environment and equipment used while Clinic for Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology, Department of Otolar- yngology, Technical University Munich (S.J.B., S.P., J.K., W.A.), Munich, Germany; ISVR, University of Southampton (M.G.), Southampton, Great Britain; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Manchester (D.M.), Manchester, Great Britain; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Bern (M.V.), Bern, Switzerland; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Vi- enna (A.J., W.B.), Vienna, Austria; Department of Otolaryngol- ogy, University of Bochum (T.S.), Bochum, Germany; Department of Otolaryngology, University Wu ¨ rzburg (J.M.), Wu ¨ rzburg, Ger- many; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Regensburg (S.P., T.S., J.S.), Regensburg, Germany; Department of Otolaryn- gology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; and De- partment of Otolaryngology, Ludwig Maximilian Universita ¨t (U.B.), Munich, Germany. 0196/0202/07/282 Supplement-0049S/0 • Ear & Hearing • Copyright © 2007 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins • Printed in the U.S.A. 49S