Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

Open Access 07-12-2021 | Otology

Speech perception and hearing effort using a new active middle ear implant audio processor

Authors: Torsten Rahne, Laura Fröhlich, Luise Wagner, Miriam Hannah Kropp, Alexander Müller

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 10/2022

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Method

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Available only for authorised users

Ball GR (2010) The Vibrant Soundbridge: design and development. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 69:1–13PubMed

Labassi S, Beliaeff M (2005) Retrospective of 1000 patients implanted with a vibrant Soundbridge middle-ear implant. Cochlear Implants Int 6(Suppl 1):74–77CrossRef

Wagner F et al (2010) Indications and candidacy for active middle ear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 69:20–26PubMed

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):1797–1806CrossRef

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):1451–1457CrossRef

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):273–284CrossRef

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):398–412CrossRef

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):164–172CrossRef

Postert B (2020) The SAMBA 2 audio processor—technical facts and initial audiological results. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete Gesellschaft m.b.H, Starnberg

10.

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

11.

Pichora-Fuller MK et al (2016) Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37(Suppl 1):5S-27SCrossRef

12.

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):18–33CrossRef

13.

Wendt D, Hietkamp RK, Lunner T (2017) Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear Hear 38(6):690–700CrossRef

14.

Krueger M et al (2017) Development of an adaptive scaling method for subjective listening effort. J Acoust Soc Am 141(6):4680CrossRef

15.

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 24:2331216520948410PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Krueger M et al (2017) Relation between listening effort and speech intelligibility in noise. Am J Audiol 26(3S):378–392CrossRef

17.

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):2412–2421CrossRef

18.

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):392–397CrossRef

19.

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):409–412CrossRef

20.

Maier H et al (2018) Minimal reporting standards for active middle ear hearing implants. Audiol Neurootol 23(2):105–115CrossRef

21.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde (2020) AWMF S2k-leitlinie, cochlea-implantat versorgung. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF), Frankfurt

22.

Müller A et al (2017) Influence of floating-mass transducer coupling efficiency for active middle-ear implants on speech recognition. Otol Neurotol 38(6):809–814CrossRef

23.

Rahne T (2021) Physikalisch-audiologische grundlagen implantierbarer hörsysteme. HNO 69(6):475–482CrossRef

24.

Rahne T, Plontke SK (2016) Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: an audiological comparison of current hearing systems. HNO 64(2):91–100CrossRef

25.

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):433–440CrossRef

26.

Perreau AE et al (2017) Listening effort measured in adults with normal hearing and cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 28(8):685–697CrossRef

Title: Speech perception and hearing effort using a new active middle ear implant audio processor
Authors: Torsten Rahne
Laura Fröhlich
Luise Wagner
Miriam Hannah Kropp
Alexander Müller
Publication date: 07-12-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07207-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Speech perception and hearing effort using a new active middle ear implant audio processor

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2022

Evaluation of the transmastoid plugging approach for superior semicircular canal dehiscences: a retrospective series of 30 ears

Frequency-specific prediction model of hearing outcomes in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty in patients with chronic otitis media

A novel radiological method to evaluate the posterior tympanotomy depth for cochlear implantation: our experience in 257 patients

Long-term auditory follow-up in the management of pediatric platinum-induced ototoxicity

Letter to the editor regarding article: “cross‐cultural adaptation and validation of Lithuanian‐NOSE scale”