Speech perception and hearing effort using a new active middle ear implant audio processor.
Listening effort
Outcome
Questionnaires
SAMBA 2
Speech perception
Vibrant Soundbridge
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
09
09
2021
accepted:
26
11
2021
pubmed:
8
12
2021
medline:
17
9
2022
entrez:
7
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) was introduced in 1996, and the fourth generation of the audio processor recently released. This clinical study evaluates the audiological performance and subjective satisfaction of the new SAMBA 2 audio processor compared to its predecessor, SAMBA. Fifteen VSB users tested both audio processors for approximately 3 weeks. Air conduction and bone conduction thresholds and unaided and aided sound field thresholds were measured with both devices. Speech performance in quiet (Freiburg monosyllables) and noise (OLSA) was evaluated as well as subjective listening effort (ACALES) and questionnaire outcomes (SSQ12 and APSQ). In addition, data from 16 subjects with normal hearing were gathered on sound field tests and ACALES. Both audio processors showed substantial improvement compared to the unaided condition. The SAMBA and SAMBA 2 had comparable performance in sound filed thresholds, while the SAMBA 2 was significantly better in speech in quiet, speech in noise, reduced listening effort, and improved subjective satisfaction compared with the SAMBA. The SAMBA 2 audio processor, compared to its predecessor SAMBA, offers improved performance throughout the parameters investigated in this study. Patients with a VSB implant would benefit from an upgrade to SAMBA 2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34874465
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07207-4
pii: 10.1007/s00405-021-07207-4
pmc: PMC9474360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4667-4675Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Ball GR (2010) The Vibrant Soundbridge: design and development. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 69:1–13
pubmed: 20610908
Labassi S, Beliaeff M (2005) Retrospective of 1000 patients implanted with a vibrant Soundbridge middle-ear implant. Cochlear Implants Int 6(Suppl 1):74–77
doi: 10.1002/cii.294
Wagner F et al (2010) Indications and candidacy for active middle ear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 69:20–26
pubmed: 20610910
Bruchhage KL et al (2017) Systematic review to evaluate the safety, efficacy and economical outcomes of the Vibrant Soundbridge for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(4):1797–1806
doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4361-2
Ernst A, Todt I, Wagner J (2016) Safety and effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge in treating conductive and mixed hearing loss: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 126(6):1451–1457
doi: 10.1002/lary.25670
Preves DA, Sammeth CA, Wynne MK (1999) Field trial evaluations of a switched directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument. J Am Acad Audiol 10(5):273–284
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1748498
Valente M et al (2006) Effect of type of noise and loudspeaker array on the performance of omnidirectional and directional microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 17(6):398–412
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.6.3
Zimmermann D et al (2020) Audiological results with the SAMBA audio processor in comparison to the amade for the Vibrant Soundbridge. Audiol Neurootol 25(3):164–172
doi: 10.1159/000506067
Postert B (2020) The SAMBA 2 audio processor—technical facts and initial audiological results. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete Gesellschaft m.b.H, Starnberg
Puder H, Fischer E, Hain J (2012) Optimized directional processing in hearing aids with integrated spatial noise reduction, in IWAENC 2012; International Workshop on acoustic signal enhancement. VDE Verlag, Aachen
Pichora-Fuller MK et al (2016) Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37(Suppl 1):5S-27S
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312
Fraser S et al (2010) Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53(1):18–33
doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0140)
Wendt D, Hietkamp RK, Lunner T (2017) Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear Hear 38(6):690–700
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000454
Krueger M et al (2017) Development of an adaptive scaling method for subjective listening effort. J Acoust Soc Am 141(6):4680
doi: 10.1121/1.4986938
Winneke AH et al (2020) Effect of directional microphone technology in hearing aids on neural correlates of listening and memory effort: an electroencephalographic study. Trends Hear 24:2331216520948410
pubmed: 32833586
pmcid: 7448147
Krueger M et al (2017) Relation between listening effort and speech intelligibility in noise. Am J Audiol 26(3S):378–392
doi: 10.1044/2017_AJA-16-0136
Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M (1997) Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am 102(4):2412–2421
doi: 10.1121/1.419624
Billinger-Finke M et al (2020) Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol 59(5):392–397
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830
Noble W et al (2013) A short form of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale suitable for clinical use: the SSQ12. Int J Audiol 52(6):409–412
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.781278
Maier H et al (2018) Minimal reporting standards for active middle ear hearing implants. Audiol Neurootol 23(2):105–115
doi: 10.1159/000490878
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde (2020) AWMF S2k-leitlinie, cochlea-implantat versorgung. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF), Frankfurt
Müller A et al (2017) Influence of floating-mass transducer coupling efficiency for active middle-ear implants on speech recognition. Otol Neurotol 38(6):809–814
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001412
Rahne T (2021) Physikalisch-audiologische grundlagen implantierbarer hörsysteme. HNO 69(6):475–482
doi: 10.1007/s00106-019-00776-1
Rahne T, Plontke SK (2016) Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: an audiological comparison of current hearing systems. HNO 64(2):91–100
doi: 10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5
McGarrigle R et al (2014) Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper.’ Int J Audiol 53(7):433–440
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.890296
Perreau AE et al (2017) Listening effort measured in adults with normal hearing and cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 28(8):685–697
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16014