MED-EL Cochlear Implant Systems Provide Best Benefit FocusOn

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 8: SNR measured in decibels (where the lower score gives a better outcome) for 5 different speech processors. Adapted from Haumann et al., 2010 Figure 9: OPUS 2 users demonstrate significantly higher speech perception (%) scores over 9 months when compared to users correct of other processors. Adapted from Brough et al., 2010 Keywords 6 BETTER PERFORMANCE SNR in dB INCREASING NOISE LEVEL 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 MEAN SRT IN ROVING HSM Auria Harmony 3G Freedom MED-EL OPUS 2 +/- 10 dB +/- 15 dB MED‑EL Provides Unsurpassed Performance in Fluctuating Speech – 2 Brough et al. (2010) from the CI centre in Manchester, England, assessed users of all brands and devices over a period of 21 months. 83 recipients wore the Esprit 3G, 40 used the Freedom, 37 used the TEMPO+, 7 used the OPUS 2, 8 used the Auria and 3 used the Harmony speech processor. Users were tested on sentences in quiet and noise. In general, OPUS 2 users outperformed the users of all other devices across all tests, and performance improved more quickly than in users of other systems. As an example, Figure 9 shows results for BKB sentences in noise. Further details on this study are provided in “Focus On: Speech Perception in Everyday Life”. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 Months BKB Sentences in noise (10 dB S:N) 9 Months Interval 21 Months (OPUS 2 data not yet available) Esprit 3G (n=69) Freedom (n=38) TEMPO+ (n=34) OPUS 2 (n=7) Auria (n=7) Harmony (n=2) Uncompromised Performance in Difficult Listening Conditions Seven adults were assessed in Würzburg, Germany, using a roving level method (Nopp et al., 2009). Users listened to fixed‑level tests that were randomly interwoven in one listening run. There were no differences in these runs when compared to fixed‑level tests alone. This shows that the MED‑EL MAESTRO Cochlear Implant System provides uncompromised performance from soft to loud levels even when level varies between sentences in a conversation. More importantly, the user does not need to make any special program adjustments to manage loud speech or whisper. They can put on their processor and go! Further details on this study are provided in “Focus On: Speech Perception in Everyday Life”.
WORSE SRT dB SPL BETTER 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 50 dB 65 dB 80 dB ROVING ROVING Quick Improvement in Quality of Life Cochlear implantation can improve the overall psychological and social functioning of a hearing impaired person. In a multi‑centre study, Baumgartner et al. (2007) assessed aspects concerning the quality of life of implantees. The Nijmegen Quality of Life Questionnaire (Hinderink et al., 2000) was used to subjectively evaluate an implantee’s perception of his/her changes in quality of life following cochlear implantation. Basic and advanced sound perception, speech production, a change in self esteem and ones’ social activities were addressed. Overall users reached significantly improved levels within the first month of the device use and an increase in all categories over the course of time could be seen (Figure 11). Patients’ self esteem increased along with their activities and social interactions. These data indicate quick improvements in quality of life with MED‑EL MAESTRO Cochlear Implant Systems. 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Average values for questionnaire-categories Superior Benefit for Older Adults To assess recent technological advances, the subjective benefits for older adults using a MED‑EL cochlear implant were evaluated (Anderson et al., 2006). Questions addressed the pre‑implant history, post‑implant device use, communication benefits, handling of the device and the quality of life. Technological advances (improved electrode design, new, faster speech‑ coding strategies and smaller, high‑performance audio processors) that allow for more accurate listening were reflected well in the study. Over 80% of the respondents had no difficulty in differentiating between male and female voices, human voices and ambient noise, and understanding speech without lip‑reading. A large proportion (91%) of the respondents agreed that the implant improved their quality of life and gave them greater confidence. The results suggest that implant use among the elderly is beneficial and successful treatment for improving speech recognition and quality of life for elderly, deaf patients. 50 dB 65 dB 80 dB pre 1m 3m 6m 12m Basic Sound Perception Self-Esteem Advanced Sound Perception Activity Limitations Speech Production Social Interactions Figure 10: Results of 7 users showing similar results for a fixed-roving level test in comparison to a randomly weaved run. Adapted from Nopp et al., 2009 Figure 11: Scores showing changes on the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire demonstrating a significant increase in quality of life immediately following CI. Adapted from Hinderink et al., 2007 7
Page 1 and 2: FocusOn MED‑EL Cochlear Implant S
Page 3 and 4: 9 Percentage Percentage 100 90 80 7
Page 5: Upgrade from the CIS+ Coding Strate
Page 9 and 10: Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use In b
Page 11 and 12: Mean scores 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

MED-EL Cochlear Implant Systems Provide Best Benefit FocusOn

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?