Phonak Hearing Systems pass through different development and study stages. At an early stage, feasibility studies are conducted to investigate new algorithms, features and functions in an isolated manner. If the benefit is proven, their performance is then investigated regarding interdependency between all available algorithms, features and functions running in parallel in a hearing aid (pivotal/pre-validation studies) and, as a result, they get optimized. Afterwards, and prior to product launch, the Phonak Hearing Systems undergo a final quality control in terms of clinical trials. This is a pre-validation study, investigating optimized algorithms, features, functions and wearing comfort. This will be a clinical investigation which will be conducted mono centric at Sonova AG Headquarters based in Stäfa (Switzerland).
The study will compare different features of the Phonak behind the ear device activated and deactivated, for example the noise reduction feature. There shall be differences in listening effort, awareness and sound quality shown. The study shall show the advantages especially for people with severe to profound hearing losses. This will be a clinical investigation which will be conducted mono centric at Sonova AG Headquarters based in Stäfa (Switzerland).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
10
The noise reduction feature shall support the hearing aid user in noisy situations and shall reduce the listening effort.
To show the advantage of the noise reduction feature there is a comparison without the feature necessary.
Sonova AG
Stäfa, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland
Subjective Listening Effort Scaling
A listening effort scaling procedure ('ACALES'; Krueger et al, 2017) was performed with noise cancellation on and off. ACALES is adaptive, altering the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at which speech is presented. Therefore it is not a simple rating scale. For each stimulus, a rating (14-point scale ranging from 1='effortless' to 14= 'only noise') was given for how "effortful" it was following speech. This results in 2-D data: a list of presentation SNRs (different for each participant), and respective participant ratings. Given the format of this data, it cannot be summarized using standard descriptive statistics. We defined SNR as the dependent variable and fitted a linear mixed effects model, with the predictors: listening effort rating \& intervention (treating participants as a random factor), characterizing SNR over the entire rating scale. The values reported represent the estimated marginal means of SNR for each intervention, averaged across effort ratings \& participants.
Time frame: 2 weeks
Subjective Ratings of Speech and Music Samples (Part1: Sound Quality)
The secondary Outcome measure of this study contains 2 parts. This first part reported here was the evaluation of the sound quality. A comparison was made between speech and music audio excerpts either with or without gain being increased by the feedback manager. Subjective ratings of sound quality were made under both of these conditions for one speech and one music sample, using the following scale: Bad (1) - Poor (2) - Fair (3) - Good (4) - Excellent (5). Results were analyzed separately for the speech and music samples.
Time frame: 4 weeks
Measure of Detection Threshold (in dB) for Soft Sounds
This outcome measure evaluated the ability to detect sounds in a quiet environment. A comparison was made between the feature under investigation being activated and deactivated. Participants were asked to change the level of a speech sample until they were just able to detect it. The ability will be measured by a detection threshold (in dB).
Time frame: 2 weeks
Subjective Ratings of Speech and Music Samples (Part 2: Artefact Perception)
The second part of this secondary Outcome measure was the evaluation of audible artefacts either with or without the available gain being increased by the feedback manager. The outcome was measured as a binary response (artefacts audible/ not audible). Participants had to indicate whether artefacts were audible under both of these conditions. The number of positive ratings (artefacts were audible) was counted.
Time frame: 2 week
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.