SLPOtherEar and hearing2022

Differing Bilateral Benefits for Spatial Release From Masking and Sound Localization Accuracy Using Bone Conduction Devices.

Fatima M Denanto, Jeremy Wales, Bo Tideholm and 1 others

PMID 35588503

WHAT IT FOUND

In adults with simulated conductive hearing loss, the benefit from separating target and masking speech did not change with bilateral bone conduction devices.

Sound localization improved, and the speech recognition threshold lowered by 0.7 dB.

Key findings

01The benefit from separating target and masking speech was 2.3 dB for both unilateral and bilateral devices.

02Bilateral devices lowered the speech recognition threshold by 0.7 dB in both separated and colocated competing speech.

03Bilateral devices improved sound localization; the benefit was 0.42 for 4 kHz noise and 0.21 for 0.5 kHz noise on a 0 to 1 error scale.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used normal-hearing adults with artificially blocked ear canals, not patients with long-standing conductive hearing loss. Devices were worn on a softband, not on a skin-penetrating screw, and band pressure was not measured. Participants were tested briefly and were not experienced bone conduction device users. Occlusion from blocking the ear canal was not quantified. The speech recognition benefit was 0.7 dB, and 5 of 25 subjects had a worse threshold with bilateral devices. Sound localization accuracy was still poorer than in normal-hearing listeners tested with the same method.

Declared interests

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat the bilateral localization benefit as proof that real patients with conductive hearing loss will gain large speech-in-noise benefits. The speech recognition benefit was 0.7 dB, and spatial release from masking did not change.

Read it on PubMed →