Binaural Application of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

1998 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Andy J. Beynon ◽  
Catharina T. M. van der Pouw ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Listening Condition ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Listening

Most, but not all, hearing-impaired patients with air conduction hearing aids prefer binaural amplification instead of monaural amplification. The binaural application of the bone conduction hearing aid is more disputable, because the attenuation (in decibels) of sound waves across the skull is so small (10 dB) that even one bone conduction hearing aid will stimulate both cochleas approximately to the same extent. Binaural fitting of the bone-anchored hearing aid was studied in three experienced bone-anchored hearing aid users. The experiments showed that sound localization, and speech recognition in quiet and also under certain noisy conditions improved significantly with binaural listening compared to the monaural listening condition. On the average, the percentage of correct identifications (within 45°) in the sound localization experiment improved by 53% with binaural listening; the speech reception threshold in quiet improved by 4.4 dB. The binaural advantage in the speech-in-noise test was comparable to that of a control group of subjects with normal hearing listening monaurally versus binaurally. The improvements in the scores were ascribed to diotic summation (improved speech recognition in quiet) and the ability to separate sounds in the binaural listening condition (improved sound localization and improved speech recognition in noise whenever the speech and noise signals came from different directions). All three patients preferred the binaural bone-anchored hearing aids and used them all day.

Audiological Results of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid HC200: Multicenter Results

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Frank F. Jorritsma ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Hans Verschuure
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Sixty-two patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (average bone conduction threshold at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz ranged from 1 to 44 dB hearing level) were fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA type HC200). Previously, 52 of them had used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid (CBHA) and 10 of them an air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). Audiological tests were conducted to compare the patients' performance with the BAHA to that with their previous conventional hearing aid. In the speech recognition in quiet test, only 5 patients in the CBHA group improved significantly: the majority had 100% scores with both hearing aids. In the speech recognition in noise test, 28 patients improved significantly. The mean improvement in the signal to noise ratio (S/N) in the CBHA group was −2.3 ± 2.4 dB. That none of the patients in the CBHA group performed worse with the BAHA led us to the conclusion that the BAHA is superior to the CBHA. None of the patients in the ACHA group achieved a better speech recognition in quiet score using the BAHA. On average, there was no significant improvement in the S/N ratio in the ACHA group, although in 6 patients the S/N ratio improved significantly, and in 1 patient it worsened significantly. From the whole group, the performance of only 2 patients, both in the ACHA group, was significantly worse with the BAHA on one of the speech recognition tests.

Speech Recognition with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Determined Objectively and Subjectively

1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
AFM Snik ◽  
EAM Mylanus ◽  
CWRJ Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Air Conduction ◽  
Head Level ◽  
Better Than

Some patients with a bone-conduction hearing aid experience serious problems such as skin irritation or headaches and inconsistency in the sound quality due to shifting of the transducer over the mastoid. The Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) provides direct bone-conduction and therefore evades these problems. Results of 58 patients fitted with either the head level BAHA HC200 or the more powerful HC220 were available for evaluation. Speech recognition-in-quiet and in-noise tests were performed in order to make a comparison between the patients’ performance with their individually adapted BAHA and their previous hearing aid. Furthermore, all the patients filled out a questionnaire, involving questions on speech recognition-in-quiet and in-noisy surroundings. Individual comparisons of the audiological and questionnaire results in the subgroup of patients who had used a bone-conduction hearing aid showed that the results with the BAHA were comparable with or significantly better than those with the previous bone-conduction hearing aid. The results in the patients who had previously used an air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous.

A Speech-to-Noise Ratio Test with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid: A Comparative Study

1986 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peder Carlsson ◽  
Bo Håkansson ◽  
Ulf Rosenhall ◽  
Anders Tjellström
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Ratio Test ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Minor Surgery ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid

Hitherto, for persons with impaired hearing who cannot use an air conduction hearing aid, the only alternative has been a conventional spring-loaded bone conduction hearing aid. Now, with minor surgery, a titanium screw can be implanted in the bone behind the ear and a coupling, which penetrates the skin, can be attached, giving a new kind of hearing aid—the “bone-anchored hearing aid.” Improved quality of sound is one of the patients’ subjective assessments. Improvement was not confirmed by a standard speech-discrimination test. With new speech material consisting of sentences in noise, the speech-to-noise ratio (SN) has been determined for 24 patients. Patients who previously used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid improved their SN on the average by 3.3 dB. The most important difference between the two aids related to improved SN is probably the increased audibility between 600 and 6000 Hz.

scholarly journals Vibrant Soundbridge and Bone Conduction Hearing Aid in Patients with Bilateral Malformation of External Ear

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 034-038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Mondelli ◽  
Thais Mariano ◽  
Heitor Honório ◽  
Rubens Brito
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
External Ear ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid

Introduction Hearing loss is the most common clinical finding in patients with malformation of the external ear canal. Among the possibilities of treatment, there is the adaptation of hearing aids by bone conduction and the adaptation of implantable hearing aids. Objective To assess speech perception with the use of Vibrant Soundbridge (VBS - MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) associated with additional amplification in patients with bilateral craniofacial malformation. Method We evaluated 11 patients with bilateral malformation over 12 years with mixed hearing loss or bilateral conductive. They were using the Softband (Oticon Medical, Sweden) and bone conduction hearing aid in the ear opposite the one with the VSB. We performed the evaluation of speech perception using the Hearing in Noise Test. Results Participants were eight men and three women with a mean of 19.5 years. The signal / noise ratio presented significant results in patients fitted with VSB and bone conduction hearing aid. Conclusion The results of speech perception were significantly better with use of VBS combined with bone conduction hearing aids.

Auditory Outcomes with Hearing Rehabilitation in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swathi Appachi ◽  
Jessica. L. Specht ◽  
Nikhila Raol ◽  
Judith E. C. Lieu ◽  
Michael S. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Objective Options for management of unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children include conventional hearing aids, bone-conduction hearing devices, contralateral routing of signal (CROS) aids, and frequency-modulating (FM) systems. The objective of this study was to systematically review the current literature to characterize auditory outcomes of hearing rehabilitation options in UHL. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2016. Manual searches of bibliographies were also performed. Review Methods Studies analyzing auditory outcomes of hearing amplification in children with UHL were included. Outcome measures included functional and objective auditory results. Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract and article. Results Of the 249 articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. Seven articles solely focused on outcomes with bone-conduction hearing devices. Outcomes favored improved pure-tone averages, speech recognition thresholds, and sound localization in implanted patients. Five studies focused on FM systems, conventional hearing aids, or CROS hearing aids. Limited data are available but suggest a trend toward improvement in speech perception with hearing aids. FM systems were shown to have the most benefit for speech recognition in noise. Studies evaluating CROS hearing aids demonstrated variable outcomes. Conclusions Data evaluating functional and objective auditory measures following hearing amplification in children with UHL are limited. Most studies do suggest improvement in speech perception, speech recognition in noise, and sound localization with a hearing rehabilitation device.

An intra-individual comparison of the previous conventional hearing aid with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Nijmegen group questionnaire

2002 ◽  
Vol 116 (S28) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Louise McDermott ◽  
Sunil N. Dutt ◽  
Andrew P. Reid ◽  
David W. Proops
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Total Response Rate ◽  
Individual Comparison ◽  
Assess Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Retrospective Questionnaire

By spring 2000, a total of 351 patients were implanted in the Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) programme. This group consisted of 242 adults and 109 children. The aim of this retrospective questionnaire study was to directly assess patient satisfaction with their current bone-anchored hearing aid in comparison with their previous conventional air and/or bone-conduction hearing aids.The Nijmegen group questionnaire was sent by post to 312 patients who used their BAHA for six months or longer. The questionnaire used was first described by Mylanus et al. (Nijmegen group) in 1998. The total response rate was 72 per cent (227 of 312 patients). The bone-anchored hearing aid was found to be significantly superior to prior conventional hearing aids in all respects.

Experience with a subcutaneous implantable bone conduction hearing aid (Xomed Audiant) in a district general hospital

1991 ◽  
Vol 105 (10) ◽  
pp. 828-831
Author(s):  
Edward Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Important Advance ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

AbstractPatients with a conductive hearing loss may find conventional hearing aids unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. Efforts to overcome some of these difficulties have led to the development of the osteointegrated hearing aid.Implantable bone conduction hearing aids are an important advance in the treatment of well selected patients. Only 18 patients, who have been implanted with the Xomed Audiant bone conduction hearing aid, have so far been reported on in the UK. This report concerns a further six patients who have been implanted in one centre.Five of these patients continue to use their Audiant hearing aid 14 to 24 months after being fitted. They regard it to have significant advantages over their previous hearing aids. Four of the five patients use an ear level processor.Two of the patients who had previously used conventional bone conduction hearing aids now use the ear level processor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document