Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:22:49.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital processing technology for bone-anchored hearing aids: randomised comparison of two devices in hearing aid users with mixed or conductive hearing loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2014

P Hill-Feltham ,
S A Roberts  and
R Gladdis
P Hill-Feltham*
Affiliation:
Audiology Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
S A Roberts
Affiliation:
Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, Manchester, UK
R Gladdis
Affiliation:
Audiology Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr P Hill-Feltham, Audiology Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study compared the performance of two new bone-anchored hearing aids with older bone-anchored hearing aids that were not fully digital.

Methods:

Fourteen experienced bone-anchored hearing aid users participated in this cross-over study. Performance of their existing bone-anchored hearing aid was assessed using speech-in-noise testing and questionnaires. Participants were then fitted with either a Ponto Pro or a BP100 device. After four weeks of use with each new device, the same assessments were repeated.

Results:

Speech-in-noise testing for the 50 per cent signal-to-noise ratio (the ratio at which 50 per cent of responses were correct) showed no significant differences between the Ponto Pro and the BP100 devices (p = 0.1) However, both devices showed significant improvement compared with the participants' previous bone-anchored hearing aid devices (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two new devices in the questionnaire data.

Conclusion:

Both fully digital bone-anchored hearing aids demonstrated superior speech processing compared with the previous generation of devices. There were no substantial differences between the two digital devices in either objective or subjective tests.

Keywords

OsseointegrationHearing AidsHearing Loss, ConductiveDigital Signal Processing
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 2 , February 2014 , pp. 119 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented as a poster at the 3rd International Symposium on Bone Conduction Hearing – Craniofacial Osseointegration, 23–26 March, 2011, Sarasota, Florida, USA, and presented orally at the British Academy of Audiology Annual Conference, 9–11 November, 2011, Llandudno, Wales, UK.

References

1Cooper, H, Burrell, S, Powell, R, Proops, D, Bickerton, J. The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: referrals, selection, rehabilitation, philosophy and adult results. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 1996;21:13–20Google Scholar
2Hol, M, Snik, A, Mylanus, E, Cremers, C. Does the bone-anchored hearing aid have a complementary effect on audiological and subjective outcomes in patients with unilateral conductive hearing loss? Otol Neurotol 2005;10:159–68Google Scholar
3Tjellström, A, Håkansson, B, Granström, G. Bone-anchored hearing aids: current status in adults and children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001;34:337–64Google Scholar
4Kochkin, S. MarkeTrak VII: customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J 2005;58:30–9Google Scholar
5Olsen, S, Henrik, G, Nielsen, L. Comparison of two bone anchored hearing instruments: BP100 and Ponto Pro. Int J Audiol 2011;50:920–8Google Scholar
6Westerkull, P. The Ponto bone-anchored hearing system. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:32–40Google ScholarPubMed
7Flynn, M, Sadeghi, A, Halvarsson, G. Benefits of directional microphones and noise reduction circuits for improving Baha® hearing performance. Cochlear Implants Int 2011;12:S139–41Google Scholar
8Rosenbom, T. An International Study Reveals the Benefits of Oticon Medical's Bone Anchored Sound Processor Ponto™. Sweden: Oticon Medical, 2010Google Scholar
9Pfiffner, F, Caversaccio, MD, Kompis, M. Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:728–35Google Scholar
10Bench, J, Kowal, A, Bamford, J. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979;13:108–12Google Scholar
11Fielden, C. Assessment of adult patients. In: Cooper, H, Craddock, L, eds. Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley, 2006;80–106Google Scholar
12MHAS Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles: Modernising Hearing Aid Services (MHAS). In: http://mhas.ihr.mrc.ac.uk/download.htm [25 April 2013]Google Scholar
13McDermott, A, Dutt, S, Tziambazis, E, Reid, A, Proops, D. Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:29–36Google Scholar
14Meister, H, Lausberg, I, Kiessling, J, Walger, M, von Wedel, H. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing aid attributes. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:457–62Google Scholar
15Meister, H, Lausberg, I, Walger, H, Von Wedel, H. Using conjoint analysis to examine the importance of hearing aid attributes. Ear Hear 2001;22:142–50Google Scholar
16Bridges, J, Lataille, A, Buttorff, C, White, S, Niparko, J. Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods. Trends Amplif 2012;16:40–8Google Scholar
17Kochkin, S. MarkeTrak VI: consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. Hear Rev 2002;9:18–22Google Scholar
18Ricketts, T. Directional hearing aids. Trends Amplif 2001;5:139–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19May, A, Larsen, C, Warland, A. Is digital enough for improved hearing in noise? Studies comparing digital and multi-microphone instruments. Phonak Focus 1998;24:1–12Google Scholar
20Bille, M, Jensen, A, Kjærbøl, E, Vesterager, V, Sibelle, P, Nielson, H. Clinical study of a digital vs an analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1999;28:127–35Google Scholar