Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the bone-anchored hearing aids Baha Compact and Baha Divino

CONCLUSIONS: Speech understanding is better with the Baha Divino than with the Baha Compact in competing noise from the rear. No difference was found for speech understanding in quiet. Subjectively, overall sound quality and speech understanding were rated better for the Baha Divino. OBJECTIVES: To compare speech understanding in quiet and in noise and subjective ratings for two different bone-anchored hearing aids: the recently developed Baha Divino and the Baha Compact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven adults with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing losses who were users of a bone-anchored hearing aid were tested with the Baha Compact in quiet and in noise. Tests were repeated after 3 months of use with the Baha Divino. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two types of Baha for speech understanding in quiet when tested with German numbers and monosyllabic words at presentation levels between 50 and 80 dB. For speech understanding in noise, an advantage of 2.3 dB for the Baha Divino vs the Baha Compact was found, if noise was emitted from a loudspeaker to the rear of the listener and the directional microphone noise reduction system was activated. Subjectively, the Baha Divino was rated statistically significantly better in terms of overall sound quality.

Audiological results with Baha in conductive and mixed hearing loss

The level of improvement in the audiological results of Baha(®) users mainly depends on the patient's preoperative hearing thresholds and the type of Baha sound processor used. This investigation shows correlations between the preoperative hearing threshold and postoperative aided thresholds and audiological results in speech understanding in quiet of 84 Baha users with unilateral conductive hearing loss, bilateral conductive hearing loss and bilateral mixed hearing loss. Secondly, speech understanding in noise of 26 Baha users with different Baha sound processors (Compact, Divino, and BP100) is investigated. Linear regression between aided sound field thresholds and bone conduction (BC) thresholds of the better ear shows highest correlation coefficients and the steepest slope. Differences between better BC thresholds and aided sound field thresholds are smallest for mid-frequencies (1 and 2 kHz) and become larger at 0.5 and 4 kHz. For Baha users, the gain in speech recognition in quiet can be expected to lie in the order of magnitude of the gain in their hearing threshold. Compared to its predecessor sound processors Baha(®) Compact and Baha(®) Divino, Baha(®) BP100 improves speech understanding in noise significantly by +0.9 to +4.6 dB signal-to-noise ratio, depending on the setting and the use of directional microphone. For Baha users with unilateral and bilateral conductive hearing loss and bilateral mixed hearing loss, audiological results in aided sound field thresholds can be estimated with the better BC hearing threshold. The benefit in speech understanding in quiet can be expected to be similar to the gain in their sound field hearing threshold. The most recent technology of Baha sound processor improves speech understanding in noise by an order of magnitude that is well perceived by users and which can be very useful in everyday life.

Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss

To compare the patient benefit of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (Baha) Divino and the Baha BP100 sound processors.

Is complex signal processing for bone conduction hearing aids useful?

OBJECTIVES To establish whether complex signal processing is beneficial for users of bone anchored hearing aids. METHODS Review and analysis of two studies from our own group, each comparing a speech processor with basic digital signal processing (either Baha Divino or Baha Intenso) and a processor with complex digital signal processing (either Baha BP100 or Baha BP110 power). The main differences between basic and complex signal processing are the number of audiologist accessible frequency channels and the availability and complexity of the directional multi-microphone noise reduction and loudness compression systems. RESULTS Both studies show a small, statistically non-significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet with the complex digital signal processing. The average improvement for speech in noise is +0.9 dB, if speech and noise are emitted both from the front of the listener. If noise is emitted from the rear and speech from the front of the listener, the advantage of the devices with complex digital signal processing as opposed to those with basic signal processing increases, on average, to +3.2 dB (range +2.3 … +5.1 dB, p ≤ 0.0032). DISCUSSION Complex digital signal processing does indeed improve speech understanding, especially in noise coming from the rear. This finding has been supported by another study, which has been published recently by a different research group. CONCLUSIONS When compared to basic digital signal processing, complex digital signal processing can increase speech understanding of users of bone anchored hearing aids. The benefit is most significant for speech understanding in noise.