Cargando…

Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices

Objective: The efficacy of wireless connectivity in bone-anchored hearing was studied by comparing the wireless and acoustic performance of the Ponto Plus sound processor from Oticon Medical relative to the acoustic performance of its predecessor, the Ponto Pro. Study sample: Nineteen subjects with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bosman, Arjan J., Mylanus, Emmanuel A.M., Hol, Myrthe K.S., Snik, Ad F.M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27176657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1177209
_version_ 1782438689387839488
author Bosman, Arjan J.
Mylanus, Emmanuel A.M.
Hol, Myrthe K.S.
Snik, Ad F.M.
author_facet Bosman, Arjan J.
Mylanus, Emmanuel A.M.
Hol, Myrthe K.S.
Snik, Ad F.M.
author_sort Bosman, Arjan J.
collection PubMed
description Objective: The efficacy of wireless connectivity in bone-anchored hearing was studied by comparing the wireless and acoustic performance of the Ponto Plus sound processor from Oticon Medical relative to the acoustic performance of its predecessor, the Ponto Pro. Study sample: Nineteen subjects with more than two years' experience with a bone-anchored hearing device were included. Thirteen subjects were fitted unilaterally and six bilaterally. Design: Subjects served as their own control. First, subjects were tested with the Ponto Pro processor. After a four-week acclimatization period performance the Ponto Plus processor was measured. In the laboratory wireless and acoustic input levels were made equal. In daily life equal settings of wireless and acoustic input were used when watching TV, however when using the telephone the acoustic input was reduced by 9 dB relative to the wireless input. Results: Speech scores for microphone with Ponto Pro and for both input modes of the Ponto Plus processor were essentially equal when equal input levels of wireless and microphone inputs were used. Only the TV-condition showed a statistically significant (p <5%) lower speech reception threshold for wireless relative to microphone input. In real life, evaluation of speech quality, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise, and annoyance by ambient noise, when using landline phone, mobile telephone, and watching TV showed a clear preference (p <1%) for the Ponto Plus system with streamer over the microphone input. Due to the small number of respondents with landline phone (N = 7) the result for noise annoyance was only significant at the 5% level. Conclusion: Equal input levels for acoustic and wireless inputs results in equal speech scores, showing a (near) equivalence for acoustic and wireless sound transmission with Ponto Pro and Ponto Plus. The default 9-dB difference between microphone and wireless input when using the telephone results in a substantial wireless benefit when using the telephone. The preference of wirelessly transmitted audio when watching TV can be attributed to the relatively poor sound quality of backward facing loudspeakers in flat screen TVs. The ratio of wireless and acoustic input can be easily set to the user’s preference with the streamer’s volume control.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4915339
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49153392016-06-28 Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices Bosman, Arjan J. Mylanus, Emmanuel A.M. Hol, Myrthe K.S. Snik, Ad F.M. Int J Audiol Technical Report Objective: The efficacy of wireless connectivity in bone-anchored hearing was studied by comparing the wireless and acoustic performance of the Ponto Plus sound processor from Oticon Medical relative to the acoustic performance of its predecessor, the Ponto Pro. Study sample: Nineteen subjects with more than two years' experience with a bone-anchored hearing device were included. Thirteen subjects were fitted unilaterally and six bilaterally. Design: Subjects served as their own control. First, subjects were tested with the Ponto Pro processor. After a four-week acclimatization period performance the Ponto Plus processor was measured. In the laboratory wireless and acoustic input levels were made equal. In daily life equal settings of wireless and acoustic input were used when watching TV, however when using the telephone the acoustic input was reduced by 9 dB relative to the wireless input. Results: Speech scores for microphone with Ponto Pro and for both input modes of the Ponto Plus processor were essentially equal when equal input levels of wireless and microphone inputs were used. Only the TV-condition showed a statistically significant (p <5%) lower speech reception threshold for wireless relative to microphone input. In real life, evaluation of speech quality, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise, and annoyance by ambient noise, when using landline phone, mobile telephone, and watching TV showed a clear preference (p <1%) for the Ponto Plus system with streamer over the microphone input. Due to the small number of respondents with landline phone (N = 7) the result for noise annoyance was only significant at the 5% level. Conclusion: Equal input levels for acoustic and wireless inputs results in equal speech scores, showing a (near) equivalence for acoustic and wireless sound transmission with Ponto Pro and Ponto Plus. The default 9-dB difference between microphone and wireless input when using the telephone results in a substantial wireless benefit when using the telephone. The preference of wirelessly transmitted audio when watching TV can be attributed to the relatively poor sound quality of backward facing loudspeakers in flat screen TVs. The ratio of wireless and acoustic input can be easily set to the user’s preference with the streamer’s volume control. Taylor & Francis 2016-07-02 2016-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4915339/ /pubmed/27176657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1177209 Text en © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (
spellingShingle Technical Report
Bosman, Arjan J.
Mylanus, Emmanuel A.M.
Hol, Myrthe K.S.
Snik, Ad F.M.
Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title_full Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title_fullStr Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title_full_unstemmed Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title_short Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
title_sort wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices
topic Technical Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27176657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1177209
work_keys_str_mv AT bosmanarjanj wirelessandacoustichearingwithboneanchoredhearingdevices
AT mylanusemmanuelam wirelessandacoustichearingwithboneanchoredhearingdevices
AT holmyrtheks wirelessandacoustichearingwithboneanchoredhearingdevices
AT snikadfm wirelessandacoustichearingwithboneanchoredhearingdevices