Ernst Arneborg, Anton Kristina, Brendel Martina, Battmer Rolf-Dieter
a BG Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin gGmbH, Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde , Warener Str. 7, 12683 Berlin , Germany.
b Advanced Bionics GmbH, European Research Center , Feodor-Lynen-Strasse 35, 30625 Hannover , Germany.
Cochlear Implants Int. 2019 May;20(3):147-157. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1578911. Epub 2019 Feb 13.
To compare the standard T-Mic setting to UltraZoom and StereoZoom in 10 unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users, 10 bimodal device users and 10 bilateral CI users as well as a normal hearing (NH) reference group (n = 10).
Speech reception thresholds were measured using the Oldenburg sentence test in noise. Speech was presented from the front at 0°, noise was presented from five loudspeakers spaced at ±60°, ±120°, 180° (setup A) or from four loudspeakers in the front hemisphere at ±30°, ±60° and one at 180° (setup B).
There was a significant advantage for UltraZoom and StereoZoom for all groups in both setups. The largest advantage was for StereoZoom in the bilateral group (setup A, 5.2 dB, P < 0.001 and B, 3.4 dB, P < 0.001) There was a significant advantage for StereoZoom over UltraZoom in the bimodal group (setup A, P < 0.01 and B, P < 0.05) and in the bilateral group (P < 0.01, setup B only). The bilateral group performed as well as the normally hearing group in both setups and the bimodal group performed as well in setup A. There was a significant benefit of 1.8 dB for ClearVoice over UltraZoom alone for the unilateral group.
UltraZoom and StereoZoom provided a clinically and statistically significant benefit over the T-Mic condition. The largest gain was shown for StereoZoom in the bimodal and bilateral groups. The use of StereoZoom enabled the bilateral group to perform as well as the normally hearing group in both the challenging speaker setups. However, real life environments might provide an even greater challenge than the conditions tested here.
比较标准T-Mic设置与UltraZoom和StereoZoom在10名单侧人工耳蜗（CI）使用者、10名双耳互传装置使用者、10名双侧CI使用者以及一个正常听力（NH）参照组（n = 10）中的效果。
使用奥尔登堡噪声句子测试测量言语接受阈值。言语从前方0°呈现，噪声从五个扬声器以±60°、±120°、180°间隔呈现（设置A），或从前半球的四个扬声器以±30°、±60°呈现，一个在180°呈现（设置B）。
在两种设置中，UltraZoom和StereoZoom对所有组均具有显著优势。最大优势出现在双侧组的StereoZoom中（设置A，5.2 dB，P < 0.001；设置B，3.4 dB，P < 0.001）。在双耳互传组（设置A，P < 0.01；设置B，P < 0.05）和双侧组（仅设置B，P < 0.01）中，StereoZoom比UltraZoom具有显著优势。双侧组在两种设置中的表现与正常听力组相当，双耳互传组在设置A中的表现也一样。对于单侧组，ClearVoice比单独的UltraZoom有1.8 dB的显著优势。
UltraZoom和StereoZoom相较于T-Mic条件具有临床和统计学上的显著优势。在双耳互传组和双侧组中，StereoZoom的增益最大。在具有挑战性的扬声器设置中，使用StereoZoom使双侧组的表现与正常听力组相当。然而，现实生活环境可能比这里测试的条件带来更大的挑战。
