Speech Understanding and Subjective Listening Effort in Noise With Different OTEs and Sound Processing Technologies.

Autor:	Wesarg T; Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany., Wiebe K, Galindo Guerreros JC, Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Voß B
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology [Otol Neurotol] 2024 Feb 01; Vol. 45 (2), pp. e91-e101.
DOI:	10.1097/MAO.0000000000004091
Abstrakt:	Objective: To determine speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise and subjective listening effort (LE) in cochlear implant (CI) recipients for application of three sound processing (SP) technologies with two off-the-ear (OTE) CI sound processors, a fixed moderately directional microphone (Standard), an adaptive directional microphone (Beam), and the spatial noise-reduction setting ForwardFocus, with the Kanso 2 (OTE2), and Beam with the Kanso (OTE1). Study Design: Prospective repeated measures, within-subject design. Setting: Single tertiary-referral center. Patients: Twenty CI recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Main Outcome Measures: SRTs were assessed in two spatial configurations with frontal speech and noise from 90-180-270 degrees (S0N90-180-270) or from the CI side (S0NCI). SRTs were obtained for sentences of the Oldenburg sentence test presented in International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) noise ICRA5-250. LE for speech understanding in noise was evaluated in S0N90-180-270 and assessed in effort scale categorical units (ESCUs) by using Adaptive Categorical Listening Effort Scaling (ACALES). LEs at 5-dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated from fitted psychometric curves. Results: With OTE2 in S0N90-180-270, SRT with ForwardFocus (-4.28 dB SNR) was better than with Beam (-3.13 dB SNR) and Standard (0.43 dB SNR). ForwardFocus showed lower LE5dB (2.61 ESCU) compared with Beam (4.60 ESCU) and Standard (5.32 ESCU). In a comparison of both OTEs in S0N90-180-270 regarding best-performing SP technology, ForwardFocus with OTE2 yielded a better SRT and better LE5dB than Beam with OTE1 (SRT: -1.70 dB SNR; LE5dB: 4.00 ESCU). With OTE2 in S0NCI, SRT was improved with ForwardFocus (-2.78 dB SNR) compared with Beam (-1.23 dB SNR) and Standard (1.83 dB SNR). Conclusion: With respect to SP technology and OTE, CI recipients experience best SRT and lowest LE in S0N90-180-270 when using ForwardFocus with OTE2. ACALES is feasible for assessing subjective LE in CI recipients. Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: T.W. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Advanced Bionics AG, grants and nonfinancial support from Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, grants and nonfinancial support from MED-EL Deutschland GmbH, outside the submitted work, and nonfinancial support from Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, during the conduct of the study. K.W. has no conflicts of interest to declare. J.C.G.G. has no conflicts of interest to declare. (Copyright © 2024, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu