A J Bosman1, I J Kruyt1, E A M Mylanus1, M K S Hol1, A F M Snik1. 1. Hearing & Implants, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Performance of an abutment-level superpower sound processor for bone-anchored hearing, the Ponto 3 SuperPower from Oticon Medical (BCD2), was compared to an earlier model from Oticon Medical (BCD1). DESIGN: A comparative study in which each patient serves as its own control. SETTING: Tertiary clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen experienced BCD1 users with profound mixed hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech reception thresholds in noise; APHAB and SSQ questionnaires. RESULTS: In a group of 18 patients with severe mixed hearing loss, the performance of a recently introduced bone conduction device (BCD2) is evaluated relative to that of an earlier model (BCD1). Speech reception thresholds for the sentence-in-noise test in the speech and noise frontal condition are not significantly different (P > .05) for BCD1 and BCD2. Speech reception thresholds for frontal speech and three identical noise sources are 1.7 dB lower for BCD2 than for BCD1 (P < .05). With the APHAB questionnaire, the score for background noise is significantly lower (P < .01), that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1 with an effect size of 0.91. The APHAB domain scores for ease-of-communication, reverberation and aversiveness of loud sounds are not significantly different for both devices (P > .05). Scores for the speech, spatial and quality of hearing domains of the SSQ questionnaire are significantly higher (P < .01), that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1 with effect sizes of 1.22, 0.71 and 1.05, respectively. Scores for the SSQ-factors "speech understanding," "spatial," "clarity, separation and identification" and "listening effort and concentration" were all significantly higher (P < .05) for BCD2 than for BCD1, with effect sizes of 1.28, 0.64, 0.98 and 0.78, respectively. On a proprietary questionnaire, 16 patients indicate a preference for BCD2 over BCD1 for conversations in a small group and two patients have no preference for either device. In a large group, one patient prefers BCD1, six patients have no preference, and eleven patients prefer BCD2. When listening to music, all patients prefer BCD2 over BCD1, with a strong preference for BCD2 for seven patients. When asked for an overall preference, all patients prefer BCD2 over BCD1, with nine patients strongly preferring BCD2. CONCLUSIONS: The lower speech reception thresholds in noise with BCD2 relative to BCD1 can be attributed to the "speech omni" directionality mode of BCD2. The combination of an improved directionality for primarily low-level inputs and a higher maximum force output, relevant for mid- and high-level inputs, results in a clear preference for BCD2 over BCD1.
OBJECTIVES: Performance of an abutment-level superpower sound processor for bone-anchored hearing, the Ponto 3 SuperPower from Oticon Medical (BCD2), was compared to an earlier model from Oticon Medical (BCD1). DESIGN: A comparative study in which each patient serves as its own control. SETTING: Tertiary clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen experienced BCD1 users with profound mixed hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech reception thresholds in noise; APHAB and SSQ questionnaires. RESULTS: In a group of 18 patients with severe mixed hearing loss, the performance of a recently introduced bone conduction device (BCD2) is evaluated relative to that of an earlier model (BCD1). Speech reception thresholds for the sentence-in-noise test in the speech and noise frontal condition are not significantly different (P > .05) for BCD1 and BCD2. Speech reception thresholds for frontal speech and three identical noise sources are 1.7 dB lower for BCD2 than for BCD1 (P < .05). With the APHAB questionnaire, the score for background noise is significantly lower (P < .01), that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1 with an effect size of 0.91. The APHAB domain scores for ease-of-communication, reverberation and aversiveness of loud sounds are not significantly different for both devices (P > .05). Scores for the speech, spatial and quality of hearing domains of the SSQ questionnaire are significantly higher (P < .01), that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1 with effect sizes of 1.22, 0.71 and 1.05, respectively. Scores for the SSQ-factors "speech understanding," "spatial," "clarity, separation and identification" and "listening effort and concentration" were all significantly higher (P < .05) for BCD2 than for BCD1, with effect sizes of 1.28, 0.64, 0.98 and 0.78, respectively. On a proprietary questionnaire, 16 patients indicate a preference for BCD2 over BCD1 for conversations in a small group and two patients have no preference for either device. In a large group, one patient prefers BCD1, six patients have no preference, and eleven patients prefer BCD2. When listening to music, all patients prefer BCD2 over BCD1, with a strong preference for BCD2 for seven patients. When asked for an overall preference, all patients prefer BCD2 over BCD1, with nine patients strongly preferring BCD2. CONCLUSIONS: The lower speech reception thresholds in noise with BCD2 relative to BCD1 can be attributed to the "speech omni" directionality mode of BCD2. The combination of an improved directionality for primarily low-level inputs and a higher maximum force output, relevant for mid- and high-level inputs, results in a clear preference for BCD2 over BCD1.