Benefit of Higher Maximum Force Output in Bone Anchored Hearing Systems: A Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how higher maximum force output (MFO) in bone anchored hearing systems (BAHS) affects perceived benefit and the subjective experience of sound as well as hearing outcomes in subjects with mixed hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective single-center, randomized crossover design (A-B-A) with within-subject control design. PATIENTS: The study included 19 experienced BAHS users with mixed hearing loss in the fitting range of a standard BAHS. INTERVENTIONS: The study evaluated two sound processors with differing MFOs and sizes-Device A: standard sound processor with a lower MFO and Device B: superpower sound processor with a higher MFO. OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech recognition in noise at different signal to noise ratios, aided thresholds, and questionnaires. RESULTS: Speech recognition test showed significant improvements using Device B compared with Device A at both 78 dB SPL (mean difference: 9%) and 75 dB SPL (mean difference: 12%) (p < 0.05). Moreover, speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ12-C) showed a significantly greater perceived benefit with Device B concerning spatial abilities (mean: 0.5-0.6) (p < 0.05). At the conclusion of the study, 58% of participants chose to keep Device A for further use. The main reasons for this were the size of the sound processor and a more comfortable sound experience. CONCLUSIONS: A BAHS sound processor with a higher MFO leads to improved speech-in-noise performance in loud/noisy listening situations and is perceived as significantly better to process spatial information in daily listening situations. However, the relation between cosmetics and performance is not straightforward, and several factors seem to affect the selection process of BAHS.

Investigating Real-World Benefits of High-Frequency Gain in Bone-Anchored Users with Ecological Momentary Assessment and Real-Time Data Logging.

PURPOSE: To compare listening ability (speech reception thresholds) and real-life listening experience in users with a percutaneous bone conduction device (BCD) with two listening programs differing only in high-frequency gain. In situ real-life experiences were recorded with ecological momentary assessment (EMA) techniques combined with real-time acoustical data logging and standard retrospective questionnaires. METHODS: Nineteen experienced BCD users participated in this study. They all used a Ponto 4 BCD from Oticon Medical during a 4-week trial period. Environmental data and device parameters (i.e., device usage and volume control) were logged in real-time on an iPhone via a custom iOS research app. At the end of the trial period, subjects filled in APHAB, SSQ, and preference questionnaires. Listening abilities with the two programs were evaluated with speech reception threshold tests. RESULTS: The APHAB and SSQ questionnaires did not reveal any differences between the two listening programs. The EMAs revealed group-level effects, indicating that in speech and noisy listening environments, subjects preferred the default listening program, and found the program with additional high-frequency gain too loud. This finding was corroborated by the volume log-subjects avoided the higher volume control setting and reacted more to changes in environmental sound pressure levels when using the high-frequency gain program. Finally, day-to-day changes in EMAs revealed acclimatization effects in the listening experience for ratings of "sound quality" and "program suitability" of the BCD, but not for ratings of "loudness perception" and "speech understanding". The acclimatization effect did not differ among the listening programs. CONCLUSION: Adding custom high-frequency amplification to the BCD target-gain prescription improves speech reception in laboratory tests under quiet conditions, but results in poorer real-life listening experiences due to loudness.

Benefit of Higher Maximum Force Output on Listening Effort in Bone-Anchored Hearing System Users: A Pupillometry Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare listening effort, as estimated via pupillary response, during a speech-in-noise test in bone-anchored hearing system (BAHS) users wearing three different sound processors. The three processors, Ponto Pro (PP), Ponto 3 (P3), and Ponto 3 SuperPower (P3SP), differ in terms of maximum force output (MFO) and MFO algorithm. The hypothesis was that listeners would allocate lower listening effort with the P3SP than with the PP, as a consequence of a higher MFO and, hence, fewer saturation artifacts in the signal. DESIGN: Pupil dilations were recorded in 21 BAHS users with a conductive or mixed hearing loss, during a speech-in-noise test performed at positive signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), where the speech and noise levels were individually adjusted to lead to 95% correct intelligibility with the PP. The listeners had to listen to a sentence in noise, retain it for 3 seconds and then repeat it, while an eye-tracking camera recorded their pupil dilation. The three sound processors were tested in random order with a single-blinded experimental design. Two conditions were performed at the same SNR: Condition 1, where the speech level was designed to saturate the PP but not the P3SP, and condition 2, where the overall sound level was decreased relative to condition 1 to reduce saturation artifacts. RESULTS: The P3SP led to higher speech intelligibility than the PP in both conditions, while the performance with the P3 did not differ from the performance with the PP and the P3SP. Pupil dilations were analyzed in terms of both peak pupil dilation (PPD) and overall pupil dilation via growth curve analysis (GCA). In condition 1, a significantly lower PPD, indicating a decrease in listening effort, was obtained with the P3SP relative to the PP. The PPD obtained with the P3 did not differ from the PPD obtained with the other two sound processors. In condition 2, no difference in PPD was observed across the three processors. The GCA revealed that the overall pupil dilation was significantly lower, in both conditions, with both the P3SP and the P3 relative to the PP, and, in condition 1, also with the P3SP relative to the P3. CONCLUSIONS: The overall effort to process a moderate to loud speech signal was significantly reduced by using a sound processor with a higher MFO (P3SP and P3), as a consequence of fewer saturation artifacts. These findings suggest that sound processors with a higher MFO may help BAHS users in their everyday listening scenarios, in particular in noisy environments, by improving sound quality and, thus, decreasing the amount of cognitive resources utilized to process incoming speech sounds.

Using Speech Recall in Hearing Aid Fitting and Outcome Evaluation Under Ecological Test Conditions.

In adaptive Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) tests used in the audiological clinic, speech is presented at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) that are lower than those generally encountered in real-life communication situations. At higher, ecologically valid SNRs, however, SRTs are insensitive to changes in hearing aid signal processing that may be of benefit to listeners who are hard of hearing. Previous studies conducted in Swedish using the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall test (SWIR) have indicated that at such SNRs, the ability to recall spoken words may be a more informative measure. In the present study, a Danish version of SWIR, known as the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall Test in a New Language (SWIRL) was introduced and evaluated in two experiments. The objective of experiment 1 was to determine if the Swedish results demonstrating benefit from noise reduction signal processing for hearing aid wearers could be replicated in 25 Danish participants with mild to moderate symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The objective of experiment 2 was to compare direct-drive and skin-drive transmission in 16 Danish users of bone-anchored hearing aids with conductive hearing loss or mixed sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. In experiment 1, performance on SWIRL improved when hearing aid noise reduction was used, replicating the Swedish results and generalizing them across languages. In experiment 2, performance on SWIRL was better for direct-drive compared with skin-drive transmission conditions. These findings indicate that spoken word recall can be used to identify benefits from hearing aid signal processing at ecologically valid, positive SNRs where SRTs are insensitive.