The Effects of Training on Music Perception and Appreciation for Cochlear Implant Recipients

Figure 1

Each participant’s mean score for each of the MTB subtests at the three time points (pretraining, session 3, and session 4), along with the two group’s means for each subtest and time point. The top panel is the MATP group, with the bottom panel being the FML group. The last graph in each panel is the mean scores for that group. PT: pretraining mean scores (i.e., average of sessions 1 and 2 scores). S3: session 3 mean scores. S4: session 4 mean scores. The -axis is numbered from 0 to 100. This represents either a % correct score (for the pitch-ranking and 3 identification tests), a score/100 for the QR Ave1–3 subtest, and the SNR-50 score for the BKB-SIN test (the signal-to-noise ratio where the recipient would have obtained 50% correct score for the sentence test material). Note for the BKB-SIN test, a lower score indicates a better result. The QR Ave4–6 score is not presented in this figure, as the scoring is neither linear or on a scale from 0 to 100. The -axis are the different MTB subtests. PR Half: pitch-ranking half octave; PR Qtr: pitch-ranking quarter-octave; Inst: instrument identification; Ensem: ensemble identification; Style: style identification; QR123: quality rating test, average of scales 1–3; BKB-SIN: BKB sentence in noise test (SNR-50 score).