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.

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.

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.

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.

Taking the Pressure Off Bone Conduction Hearing Aid Users

2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-118
Author(s):  
George Raicevich ◽  
Eric Burwood ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document