Contralateral Routing of Signals in Unilateral Hearing Impairment<i>A Better Method of Fitting</i>

Ericson, H.; I, Svärd; Högset, Ola; G, Devert; Ekström, L

doi:10.3109/01050398809070699

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early reports of benefit in monaural listeners with CROS hearing devices suggested that lifting of the head-shadow resulted in significant benefit to this population (13). However, this treatment was plagued by acoustic limitations that resulted in complaints of poor sound quality and discomfort with device use (12,13) ultimately leading to a lack of acceptance for CROS as a treatment solution by individuals with unilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Speech-in-Noise and Localization Benefits in Unilateral Hearing Loss Subjects Using Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids or Bone-Anchored Implants

Snapp

Holt

Liu³

et al. 2017

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the benefit of wireless contralateral routing of signal (CROS) technology to bone-anchored implant (BAI) technology in monaural listeners. Study Design Prospective, single-subject Setting Tertiary academic referral center Patients Adult English speaking subjects using either a CROS hearing aid or BAI as treatment for unilateral severe-profound hearing loss. Interventions Aided performance utilizing the subjects BAI or CROS hearing device. Main Outcome Measures Outcome measures included speech-in-noise perception using the QuickSIN™ speech-in-noise test and localization ability using narrow and broadband stimuli. Performance was measured in the unaided and aided condition and compared to normal hearing controls. Subjective outcomes measures included the Speech Spatial and Qualities hearing scale and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile. Results A significant improvement in speech-in-noise performance for monaural listeners (p<0.0001) was observed, but there was no improvement in localization ability of either CROS or BAI users. There was no significant difference between CROS and BAI subject groups for either outcome measure. BAI recipients demonstrate higher initial disability and handicap over CROS hearing aid users. No significant difference was observed between treatment groups for subjective measures of post-treatment residual disability or satisfaction. Conclusions Our data demonstrate that both CROS and BAI systems provide significant benefit for monaural listeners. There is no significant difference between CROS or BAI systems for objective measures of speech-in-noise performance. CROS and BAI hearing devices do not provide any localization benefit in the horizontal plane for monaural listeners and there is no significant difference between systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CROS hearing aid was first introduced by Harford and Barry (11) in 1965. Poor acceptance of CROS hearing aids at this time are largely attributed to complaints of occlusion in the better ear, poor sound quality, and discomfort (12,13). Additional limitations included aesthetics, size, and poor battery life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Speech-in-Noise and Localization Benefits in Unilateral Hearing Loss Subjects Using Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids or Bone-Anchored Implants

Snapp

Holt

Liu³

et al. 2017

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early reports of benefit in monaural listeners with CROS hearing devices suggested that lifting of the head-shadow resulted in significant benefit to this population 14 . However, the acoustic limitations of early CROS systems resulted in complaints of poor sound quality and discomfort with device use 13,14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the acoustic limitations of early CROS systems resulted in complaints of poor sound quality and discomfort with device use 13,14 . Some have attributed poor acceptance of CROS technology to the inability to restore binaural function 11 as rerouting the signal to the normal hearing ear does not provide distinct binaural processing for advanced auditory processing abilities such as localization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CROS hearing aids consist of a microphone that is placed at the impaired ear, which then routes the acoustic signal to a hearing aid worn in the normally functioning ear, requiring individuals with normal hearing in one ear to use two hearing aids. This along with acoustic limitations of the device led to complaints of occlusion in the better ear, poor sound quality, and discomfort 13,14 . As an alternative to CROS, bone anchored implants (BAI) 7,8,15-17 were introduced for the treatment of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in 2002.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness in Rehabilitation of Current Wireless CROS Technology in Experienced Bone-Anchored Implant Users

Snapp

Hoffer²,

Liu³

et al. 2017

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the effectiveness of current contralateral routing of signal technology (CROS) to bone-anchored implants in experienced bone anchored implant users with unilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Design Prospective, within-subject repeated-measures comparison study Setting Tertiary referral center Patients Adult, English speaking patients (n=12) with severe-profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss implanted with a bone-anchored implant for the indication of single-sided deafness. Intervention Subjects were fitted with contralateral routing of signal amplification and tested for speech in noise performance and localization error. Outcome measures Speech perception in noise was assessed using the BKB-SIN™ test materials. Localization was assessed using narrow band noises centered at 500 and 4000 Hz, as well as a broadband speech stimulus presented at random to the front hemifield by 19 speakers spatially separated by 10 degrees. Results There was no improvement in localization ability in the aided condition and no significant difference in performance with CROS versus BAI. There was a significant improvement in speech in noise performance for monaural listeners in the aided condition for speech poorer ear/noise better ear, speech front/noise front, and speech front/noise back. No significant difference was observed on performance with CROS versus BAI subjects. Conclusions Contrary to earlier studies suggesting improved performance of BAIs over CROS, the current study found no difference in performance in BAI over CROS devices. Both CROS and BAI provide significant benefit for monaural listeners. The results suggest that non-invasive CROS solutions can successfully rehabilitate certain monaural listening deficits, provide improved hearing outcomes and expand the reach of treatment in this population.

show abstract

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to investigate the benefit of Bonebridge devices in patients with single-sided deafness. Method Five patients with single-sided deafness who were implanted with Bonebridge devices were recruited in a single-centre study. Participants’ speech perception and horizontal sound localisation abilities were assessed at 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments was measured in three different testing conditions (speech and noise presented from the front, speech and noise presented from the front and contralateral (normal ear) side separately, and speech presented from the ipsilateral (implanted Bonebridge) side and noise from the contralateral side). Sound localisation was evaluated in Bonebridge-aided and Bonebridge-unaided conditions at different stimuli levels (65, 70 and 75 dB SPL). Results All participants showed a better capacity for speech intelligibility in quiet environments with the Bonebridge device. The speech recognition threshold with the Bonebridge device was significantly decreased at both short- and long-term follow up in the speech presented from the ipsilateral (implanted Bonebridge) side and noise from the contralateral side condition (p < 0.05). Additionally, participants maintained similar levels of sound localisation between the Bonebridge-aided and unaided conditions (p > 0.05). However, the accuracy of localisation showed some improvement at 70 dB SPL and 75 dB SPL post-operatively. Conclusion The Bonebridge device provides the benefit of improved speech perception performance in patients with single-sided deafness. Sound localisation abilities were neither improved nor worsened with Bonebridge implantation at the follow-up assessments.

show abstract

Contralateral Routing of Signals in Unilateral Hearing ImpairmentA Better Method of Fitting

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Comparison of Speech-in-Noise and Localization Benefits in Unilateral Hearing Loss Subjects Using Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids or Bone-Anchored Implants

Comparison of Speech-in-Noise and Localization Benefits in Unilateral Hearing Loss Subjects Using Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids or Bone-Anchored Implants

Effectiveness in Rehabilitation of Current Wireless CROS Technology in Experienced Bone-Anchored Implant Users

Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About