Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03861442

Front-End Processing 3.0

This study investigated the impact of Automatic Sound Management 3.0 (i.e. ambient noise reduction, transient noise reduction and an adaptive intelligence) as implemented in the SONNET2 on CI users' speech performance and their subjective quality of hearing and device handling.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenkrankheiten, plastische und ästhetische Operationen

Würzburg, Bavaria, 97080, Germany

About this study

MED-EL Cochlear Implants (CI) provide auditory sensations via electrical stimulation of the auditory pathways for severely to profoundly hearing-impaired individuals who obtain little or no benefit from acoustic amplification in the best aided condition. Front-end processing of acoustic signals picked up by the audio processor is routinely applied to provide optimal hearing performance under varying listening conditions. Automatic Sound Management (ASM) was introduced by MED-EL with the TEMPO+ audio processor and provided advanced compression and automatic gain management. With the SONNET audio processor, MED-EL introduced ASM 2.0, which added wind noise reduction and microphone directionality to the front-end processing. With the new SONNET2 audio processor, ASM 3.0 was implemented and the features ambient noise reduction, transient noise reduction and an adaptive intelligence (AI) were added.

This study investigated the impact of ASM 3.0 as implemented in the SONNET2 on CI users' speech performance and their subjective quality of hearing.

Subjects' speech performance was tested in quiet (Freiburg Monosyllables Test) and noise (OLSA) with the SONNET audio processor and the SONNNET 2 audio processor (OPUS 2 Configuration, SONNET Configuration, SONNET 2 Configurations 1-4). Additionally, quality of hearing with two questionnaires (HISQUI19, SSQ12) was evaluated with the subjects SONNET and the SONNET 2 configurations 1-4. Device handling with the SONNET and the SONNET 2 audio processor was investigated with a questionnaire (APSQ). Additionally, the data logging function of the SONNET2 audio processor was used to investigate differences in the use of the SONNET configuration and the SONNET 2 configurations 1-4. Subjects were asked to rate the SONNET 2 configurations 1-4 against the SONNET configuration with a product-specific SONNET2 questionnaires. Further, subjective sound quality was evaluated in different auditory settings and subjects' subjective listening effort was evaluated using the ACAES test with the SONNET 2 (OPUS configuration, SONNET configuration, SONNET 2 configuration 1&2).

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • A minimum of 18 years old
  • Experienced user (≥ 6 months) of a MED-EL cochlear implant (CI; C40+ and later model)
  • Experienced user of a MED-EL SONNET audio processor (≥ 6 months)
  • Post-lingual onset of bilateral severe to profound sensory-neural hearing loss
  • Unilateral CI user
  • A minimum of 10 active electrodes
  • A minimum of 40% speech recognition in the Freiburg Monosyllables test in quiet at 65 dB sound pressure level (SPL; at the last time tested)
  • Fluent in German (the language of the test centre)
  • Signed and dated Informed Consent Form before the start of any study-specific procedure.

Exclusion criteria

  • Lack of compliance with any inclusion criteria
  • CI user with contralateral hearing equal to or better than 60 dB (PTA measured at 500, 1000, and 2000Hz)
  • User with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS; user of an EAS audio processor)
  • Implanted with C40X and C40C
  • Implanted with an Auditory Brainstem Implant or Split electrode array
  • Known allergic reactions to components of the investigational medical device
  • Unstable psychological status
  • Anything that, in the opinion of the Investigator, would place the subject at increased risk or preclude the subject's full compliance with or completion of the study

Treatment and study plan

Audio processor SONNET

Device

AI - N/A, WNR - Mild, Beam-former - NAT, AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - N/A, TNR - N/A

Other names: Default

SONNET 2: Configuration 1

Device

AI - Off, WNR - Mild, Beam-former - NAT, AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - Mild, TNR - Mild

SONNET 2: Configuration 2

Device

AI - Off, WNR - Mild, Beam-former - NAT, AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - Strong, TNR - Strong

SONNET 2: Configuration 3

Device

AI - Mild, WNR - Mild, Beam-former - Auto (NAT), AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - Auto (Off-Mild), TNR - Auto (Off-Mild)

SONNET 2: Configuration 4

Device

AI - Strong, WNR - Strong, Beam-former - Auto (OMNI-ABF), AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - Auto (Off-Strong), TNR - Auto (Off-Strong)

SONNET 2: OPUS 2 configuration

Device

AI - Off, WNR - Off, Beam-former - OMNI, AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - N/A, TNR - N/A

SONNET 2: SONNET configuration

Device

AI - Off, WNR - Mild, Beam-former - NAT, AGC Compression - 3:1, AGC Sensitivity - 75%, ANR - N/A, TNR - N/A

Primary outcomes

  1. Speech in noise

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Oldenburg Sentence Test in noise (S0N0)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Speech in quiet

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Freiburg Monosyllabic test in quiet

  2. Speech in noise

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Oldenburg Sentence Test in noise (S0N0)

  3. Speech in noise

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Oldenburg Sentence Test in noise (S0N0T0)

  4. Speech in noise

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Oldenburg Sentence Test in noise (S0, ±N45, ± N135)

  5. Quality of hearing

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index

  6. Quality of hearing

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Questionnaire: The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12; short version, 12 items) with a scale range 0 (worst) to 10 (best)

  7. Device handling

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) with a scale range 0 (worst) to 10 (best)

  8. Subjective Ratings

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Adaptive CAtegorical Listening Effort Scaling (ACALES); Subjectively perceived listening Effort is evaluated using a 14-step scale contains eight labelled categories (from "effortless" to "extremely strenuous" and "noise only")

  9. Subjective Ratings

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Subjective Sound Quality Rating

  10. User Satisfaction

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    A product specific questionnaire will be used to gain user satisfaction on the new audio processor and individual setting preferences

  11. Device Use

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Data Logging

  12. Sound Quality and Quality of hearing

    Time frame: 8 weeks

    Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index 19 (HISQUI19) with a 7-point rating scale (never to always)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

Front-End Processing 3.0 - Noise Reduction, Transient Reduction, Scene Classifier

Acronym: FEP3

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2020
Study completion
2020
First posted
Mar 4, 2019
Registry last updated
Jun 5, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.