Performance of the HarmonyTM behind-the-ear processor with the first generation of Advanced BionicsTM implant systems

Abstract Objectives When new cochlear implant (CI) sound processors are being introduced by the manufacturers, usually the newest generation implants benefit first from the new technology in order to release the full potential of the new hardware. Subsequently, for the Advanced Bionics system the Harmony behind-the-ear processor was only compatible to the newer generation implants, i.e. the CII and HiRes90K, at the time of market release. After further development of a new Digital Signal Processing code the Harmony could also support the first implant generation, the ‘C1’ (Clarion 1.0 and 1.2). This study reports on a field trial with a new sound processor designed to be used with older generation CIs from Advanced Bionics, focussing on ergonomic and performance benefits. Methods Speech perception tests (Freiburger monosyllables, HSM sentence tests) were performed at a baseline appointment with the subject's clinical processor, followed by the fitting of the Harmony. After a 1 month take-home period the tests were repeated with the Harmony. Additionally, subjective evaluation through questionnaires and a structured interview were administered after upgrading to the sound processor ‘C1 Harmony’. Adult users of Advanced Bionics C1 series CIs (n = 29) participated in this study. Results The new processor provided superior performance in many, though not all, of the speech recognition measurements. Subjective reports indicated certain practical benefits from the new processor, particularly for previous users of body-worn processors. Overall, 80% of the subjects preferred the new processor. Conclusion The positive outcomes from this trial have resulted in the decision to make the new C1 Harmony processor available to all existing users of the early C1 devices.

[1]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  A high rate n-of-m speech processing strategy for the first generation Clarion cochlear implant , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[2]  R. Laszig,et al.  Praxis der Audiometrie , 2009 .

[3]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[4]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  SAS-CIS Preference Study in Postlingually Deafened Adults Implanted with the Clarion® Cochlear Implant , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[6]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Comparison of Speech Processing Strategies Used in the Clarion Implant Processor , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Susan Zimmerman-Phillips,et al.  Programming Features of the Clarion® Multi-Strategy™ Cochlear Implant , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[8]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[9]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Comparison of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Speech Processing Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults with a Clarion 1.2 Cochlear Implant , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  D T Lawson,et al.  Design and evaluation of a continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processing strategy for multichannel cochlear implants. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)–Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) Pilot Comparison Study in Europe , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.