Speech perception outcomes in transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective(s): To investigate the differences in percutaneous versus passive transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness. Study Design: Prospective, single-subject. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Adult bone-anchored implant listeners with single-sided deafness using a percutaneous implant system. Interventions: Experienced percutaneous bone anchored implant recipients were tested in the percutaneous and transcutaneous conditions using a BAHA 5 (Cochlear Corp., Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions, Mölnlycke, Sweden) sound processor on the patient’s own abutment and on a softband. Main Outcome Measures: Phoneme recognition was assessed using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs. Speech perception in noise performance was also assessed for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs using sentences presented in multi-talker babble. Aided free-field thresholds were obtained in both conditions using warble tone stimuli. Results: Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain for high frequency stimulation. Transcutaneous stimulation required higher signal to noise ratios to achieve comparable performance to the percutaneous condition. Phoneme recognition was poorer in transcutaneous versus percutaneous stimulation with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs. Conclusion: A significant performance gap in speech recognition is observed between percutaneous and transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness at the same signal to noise ratios. Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain, decreased phoneme recognition, word recognition, and performance in noise, with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1068-1075
Number of pages8
JournalOtology and Neurotology
Volume40
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2019

Fingerprint

Bone Conduction
Speech Perception
Deafness
Cochlea
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Bone and Bones
Noise
Sweden
Tertiary Care Centers
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Recognition (Psychology)
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • BAHA
  • Bone anchored implant
  • Bone-conduction
  • Osseointegrated implant
  • Percutaneous
  • Single-sided deafness
  • Speech-in-noise
  • Transcutaneous

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

@article{dd7202ce526d444182ecd9149dec97b8,
title = "Speech perception outcomes in transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness",
abstract = "Objective(s): To investigate the differences in percutaneous versus passive transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness. Study Design: Prospective, single-subject. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Adult bone-anchored implant listeners with single-sided deafness using a percutaneous implant system. Interventions: Experienced percutaneous bone anchored implant recipients were tested in the percutaneous and transcutaneous conditions using a BAHA 5 (Cochlear Corp., Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions, M{\"o}lnlycke, Sweden) sound processor on the patient’s own abutment and on a softband. Main Outcome Measures: Phoneme recognition was assessed using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs. Speech perception in noise performance was also assessed for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs using sentences presented in multi-talker babble. Aided free-field thresholds were obtained in both conditions using warble tone stimuli. Results: Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain for high frequency stimulation. Transcutaneous stimulation required higher signal to noise ratios to achieve comparable performance to the percutaneous condition. Phoneme recognition was poorer in transcutaneous versus percutaneous stimulation with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs. Conclusion: A significant performance gap in speech recognition is observed between percutaneous and transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness at the same signal to noise ratios. Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain, decreased phoneme recognition, word recognition, and performance in noise, with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs.",
keywords = "BAHA, Bone anchored implant, Bone-conduction, Osseointegrated implant, Percutaneous, Single-sided deafness, Speech-in-noise, Transcutaneous",
author = "Snapp, {Hillary A.} and Morgenstein, {Kari E.} and Brianna Kuzbyt",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MAO.0000000000002362",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "1068--1075",
journal = "Otology and Neurotology",
issn = "1531-7129",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Speech perception outcomes in transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness

AU - Snapp, Hillary A.

AU - Morgenstein, Kari E.

AU - Kuzbyt, Brianna

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - Objective(s): To investigate the differences in percutaneous versus passive transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness. Study Design: Prospective, single-subject. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Adult bone-anchored implant listeners with single-sided deafness using a percutaneous implant system. Interventions: Experienced percutaneous bone anchored implant recipients were tested in the percutaneous and transcutaneous conditions using a BAHA 5 (Cochlear Corp., Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions, Mölnlycke, Sweden) sound processor on the patient’s own abutment and on a softband. Main Outcome Measures: Phoneme recognition was assessed using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs. Speech perception in noise performance was also assessed for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs using sentences presented in multi-talker babble. Aided free-field thresholds were obtained in both conditions using warble tone stimuli. Results: Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain for high frequency stimulation. Transcutaneous stimulation required higher signal to noise ratios to achieve comparable performance to the percutaneous condition. Phoneme recognition was poorer in transcutaneous versus percutaneous stimulation with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs. Conclusion: A significant performance gap in speech recognition is observed between percutaneous and transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness at the same signal to noise ratios. Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain, decreased phoneme recognition, word recognition, and performance in noise, with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs.

AB - Objective(s): To investigate the differences in percutaneous versus passive transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness. Study Design: Prospective, single-subject. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Adult bone-anchored implant listeners with single-sided deafness using a percutaneous implant system. Interventions: Experienced percutaneous bone anchored implant recipients were tested in the percutaneous and transcutaneous conditions using a BAHA 5 (Cochlear Corp., Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions, Mölnlycke, Sweden) sound processor on the patient’s own abutment and on a softband. Main Outcome Measures: Phoneme recognition was assessed using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) words for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs. Speech perception in noise performance was also assessed for soft (47 dB SPL) and average (62 dB SPL) speech inputs using sentences presented in multi-talker babble. Aided free-field thresholds were obtained in both conditions using warble tone stimuli. Results: Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain for high frequency stimulation. Transcutaneous stimulation required higher signal to noise ratios to achieve comparable performance to the percutaneous condition. Phoneme recognition was poorer in transcutaneous versus percutaneous stimulation with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs. Conclusion: A significant performance gap in speech recognition is observed between percutaneous and transcutaneous bone-conduction stimulation in individuals with single-sided deafness at the same signal to noise ratios. Compared with percutaneous bone-conduction stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation demonstrated reduced effective gain, decreased phoneme recognition, word recognition, and performance in noise, with the most significant impact observed for soft speech inputs.

KW - BAHA

KW - Bone anchored implant

KW - Bone-conduction

KW - Osseointegrated implant

KW - Percutaneous

KW - Single-sided deafness

KW - Speech-in-noise

KW - Transcutaneous

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070819805&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070819805&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002362

DO - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002362

M3 - Article

C2 - 31356484

AN - SCOPUS:85070819805

VL - 40

SP - 1068

EP - 1075

JO - Otology and Neurotology

JF - Otology and Neurotology

SN - 1531-7129

IS - 8

ER -