OBJECTIVE: To compare speech recognition in noise for the Nucleus Freedom and CP810 sound processors using different directional settings among those available in the SmartSound portfolio. STUDY DESIGN: Single-subject, repeated measures study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one monoaurally and binaurally implanted subjects (24 children and 7 adults) were enrolled. They were all experienced Nucleus Freedom sound processor users and achieved a 100% open set word recognition score in quiet listening conditions. Each patient was fitted with the Freedom and the CP810 processor. The program setting incorporated Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO) and adopted the directional algorithm BEAM (both devices) and ZOOM (only on CP810). Speech reception threshold (SRT) was assessed in a free-field layout, with disyllabic word list and interfering multilevel babble noise in the 3 different pre-processing configurations. RESULTS: On average, CP810 improved significantly patients' SRTs as compared to Freedom SP after 1 hour of use. Instead, no significant difference was observed in patients' SRT between the BEAM and the ZOOM algorithm fitted in the CP810 processor. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that hardware developments achieved in the design of CP810 allow an immediate and relevant directional advantage as compared to the previous-generation Freedom device.
OBJECTIVE: To compare speech recognition in noise for the Nucleus Freedom and CP810 sound processors using different directional settings among those available in the SmartSound portfolio. STUDY DESIGN: Single-subject, repeated measures study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one monoaurally and binaurally implanted subjects (24 children and 7 adults) were enrolled. They were all experienced Nucleus Freedom sound processor users and achieved a 100% open set word recognition score in quiet listening conditions. Each patient was fitted with the Freedom and the CP810 processor. The program setting incorporated Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO) and adopted the directional algorithm BEAM (both devices) and ZOOM (only on CP810). Speech reception threshold (SRT) was assessed in a free-field layout, with disyllabic word list and interfering multilevel babble noise in the 3 different pre-processing configurations. RESULTS: On average, CP810 improved significantly patients' SRTs as compared to Freedom SP after 1 hour of use. Instead, no significant difference was observed in patients' SRT between the BEAM and the ZOOM algorithm fitted in the CP810 processor. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that hardware developments achieved in the design of CP810 allow an immediate and relevant directional advantage as compared to the previous-generation Freedom device.
Authors: Clemens Honeder; Rudolfs Liepins; Christoph Arnoldner; Hana Šinkovec; Alexandra Kaider; Erich Vyskocil; Dominik Riss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240