Hearing LossNCT04721990
Subjective and Objective Performance With the SONNET2EAS
A study testing Automatic Sound Management 3.0 in people with Hearing Loss and Hearing Disability, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority and new features of an external speech processor for cochlear implant recipients. Participants: This study seeks to enroll 15 cochlear implant recipients listening to previous technology. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Hearing Loss, Hearing Disability
- What is being tested?
- Automatic Sound Management 3.0
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Apr 2021to Apr 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adult (≥18 years at date of enrollment/initial evaluation)
- MED-EL Cochlear Implant System recipient
- Unilateral cochlear implant recipient
- Unaided threshold of ≤65 decibels (dB) Hearing Level (HL) at 125 Hz in implanted ear
- Six months or greater of SONNETEAS listening experience
- Consistent device user, as deemed by research team
Show all 9Show fewer
- Minimum of 10 enabled electrodes
- Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) word score of ≥40% with SONNETEAS processor and contralateral ear plugged/masked
- Native English speaker (as all materials are written or spoken in English)
Who cannot join
- Unaided pure tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz) ≤60 dB HL in the contralateral (non-implanted) ear
- Hearing technology other than a conventional hearing aid in the contralateral ear
- Unwilling, unable, or geographic limitations to participate in study procedures
- Unwilling to complete datalogging with the processor
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599
About this study
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority and new features of an external speech processor for cochlear implant recipients.
Participants: This study seeks to enroll 15 cochlear implant recipients listening to previous technology.
Procedures (methods): Subjects will be programmed and tested with old and new technology.
Read the detailed description
Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation include adults with normal-to-moderate low-frequency hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. A cochlear implant system includes two parts: 1) the internal electrode array that is surgically implanted into the cochlea, and 2) the external audio processor that picks up the acoustic signal. The external audio processor sends the converted acoustic signal to the internal device, which is presented as electrical pulses via individual electrodes and interpreted by the brain as sound.
When acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is preserved postoperatively, cochlear implant recipients are fit with an electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device. An EAS device combines acoustic and cochlear implant technology into a single device to provide acoustic amplification of the aidable low-frequency hearing region and electric stimulation of the mid-to-high frequency region. Cochlear implant recipients demonstrate a significant improvement when listening with EAS as compared to listening with acoustic or electric stimulation alone on measures of speech understanding and subjective benefit. The benefit is thought to be due to the addition of acoustic low-frequency cues.
The MED-EL SONNETEAS system was approved for commercial use in 2017 for adults (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria). Recently, the SONNET2EAS was approved and is currently MED-EL Corporation's newest EAS audio processor. While processing with the SONNET2EAS is currently the similar to that of the SONNETEAS, updated "front-end features", including improved artificial intelligence, are available within the device but have not been approved for commercial use.
Front-end processing occurs in the external audio processor prior to the coding of the signal. This processing is intended to optimize signal perception in variable environments (e.g. complex, noisy listening conditions). Currently, the SONNETEAS and SONNET2EAS have two microphones receiving the incoming signal, which are then manipulated to allow for wind noise reduction (WNR) and directional processing. These features are included within the currently approved "Automatic Sound Management (ASM) 2.0" and primarily seek to improve speech perception in the presence of noise. ASM 3.0 may offer cochlear implant listeners an improvement in speech understanding, specifically in complex or noisy listening situations, and potentially improve ease of listening in a dynamic environment. Listeners of devices with front-end processing demonstrate similar or improved performance than with devices without this technology - dependent on the listening situation.
The aim of the present investigation is to compare objective and subjective outcomes with the new front-end features to the current generation in EAS device users, using a within subject design.
- Conditions
- Hearing Loss, Hearing Disability
- Being tested
- Automatic Sound Management 3.0
- Keywords
- Cochlear Implant, Front End Processing, Cochlear Implant Audio Processor
- Medical subject headings
- Hearing Loss
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Automatic Sound Management 3.0Device
The investigational front-end features include those within Automatic Sound Management 3.0 (i.e., Ambient Noise and Transient-Noise Reduction, and Adaptive Intelligence). Automatic Sound Management 3.0 will be accessed in the MAESTRO system software. The investigational front-end features within Automatic Sound Management 3.0 will be programmed in the SONNET2EAS processor.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic Sound Management 3.0 | Experimental | Current SONNETEAS listeners, who meet the eligibility criteria, will be tested with their current listening configuration and also fit with a SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0 (under the Investigational Device Exemption). Receives: Device: Automatic Sound Management 3.0 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores
Testing open-set word understanding. Recorded CNC Words lists will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) Sentences in Diffuse Noise
Testing open-set sentence understanding with background noise present. Recorded Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise will be presented to participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in reported device satisfaction on the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ)
Participants report subjective device satisfaction by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective satisfaction reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Speech Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Participants report subjective device benefit when hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Spatial Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Participants reported subjective device benefit for the directional, distance, and movement components of spatial hearing by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: 2 Years
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Qualities Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Participants reported subjective device benefit in qualities of hearing (including ease of listening and the naturalness, clarity, and identifiability of different sounds) by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Secondary outcomes (4)
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear plugged/masked with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Testing open-set word understanding. Recorded CNC Words lists will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Mild will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Off, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear plugged/masked with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Testing open-set sentence understanding with background noise present. Recorded HINT Sentences will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Mild will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Off, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Testing open-set word understanding. Recorded CNC Words lists will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Mild will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Off, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Testing open-set sentence understanding with background noise present. Recorded HINT Sentences will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Mild will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS AI Off, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Measured: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Jan 2021
- Study startApr 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completionApr 2023 (estimated)
- Study completionApr 2023 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Recruitment was never initiated, and no subject participated.
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Hearing LossStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Med-El Corporation
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Margaret T Dillon, AuD, Principal investigator, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04721990
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20-1857
- Status last verified
- Aug 2021
- First submitted
- 19 Jan 2021
- Last updated
- 18 Aug 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Adunka OF, Dillon MT, Adunka MC, King ER, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA. Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience. Laryngoscope. 2013 Oct;123(10):2509-15. doi: 10.1002/lary.23741. Epub 2013 Aug 5.
PubMed 23918623Billinger-Finke M, Bracker T, Weber A, Amann E, Anderson I, Batsoulis C. Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol. 2020 May;59(5):392-397. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
PubMed 31944127Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol. 2004 Feb;43(2):85-99. doi: 10.1080/14992020400050014.
PubMed 15035561Gifford RH, Dorman MF. THE PSYCHOPHYSICS OF LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC HEARING IN ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC STIMULATION (EAS) AND BIMODAL PATIENTS. J Hear Sci. 2012 May 1;2(2):33-44.
PubMed 24244874Gifford RH, Grantham DW, Sheffield SW, Davis TJ, Dwyer R, Dorman MF. Localization and interaural time difference (ITD) thresholds for cochlear implant recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Hear Res. 2014 Jun;312:28-37. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.02.007. Epub 2014 Mar 7.
PubMed 24607490Hagen R, Radeloff A, Stark T, Anderson I, Nopp P, Aschbacher E, Moltner A, Khajehnouri Y, Rak K. Microphone directionality and wind noise reduction enhance speech perception in users of the MED-EL SONNET audio processor. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020 Jan;21(1):53-65. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1664529. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
PubMed 31524107PETERSON GE, LEHISTE I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord. 1962 Feb;27:62-70. doi: 10.1044/jshd.2701.62. No abstract available.
PubMed 14485785Pillsbury HC 3rd, Dillon MT, Buchman CA, Staecker H, Prentiss SM, Ruckenstein MJ, Bigelow DC, Telischi FF, Martinez DM, Runge CL, Friedland DR, Blevins NH, Larky JB, Alexiades G, Kaylie DM, Roland PS, Miyamoto RT, Backous DD, Warren FM, El-Kashlan HK, Slager HK, Reyes C, Racey AI, Adunka OF. Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2018 Mar;39(3):299-305. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001691.
PubMed 29342054Wolfe J, Neumann S, Marsh M, Schafer E, Lianos L, Gilden J, O'Neill L, Arkis P, Menapace C, Nel E, Jones M. Benefits of Adaptive Signal Processing in a Commercially Available Cochlear Implant Sound Processor. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Aug;36(7):1181-90. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000781.
PubMed 26049314
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Aug 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Subjective and Objective Performance With the SONNET2EAS
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04721990
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 20-1857
- Conditions
- Hearing Loss, Hearing Disability
- Keywords
- Cochlear Implant, Front End Processing, Cochlear Implant Audio Processor
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Recruitment was never initiated, and no subject participated.
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Med-El Corporation
- Study start
- Apr 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Apr 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Apr 2023 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority and new features of an external speech processor for cochlear implant recipients.
Participants: This study seeks to enroll 15 cochlear implant recipients listening to previous technology.
Procedures (methods): Subjects will be programmed and tested with old and new technology.
Detailed description
Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation include adults with normal-to-moderate low-frequency hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. A cochlear implant system includes two parts: 1) the internal electrode array that is surgically implanted into the cochlea, and 2) the external audio processor that picks up the acoustic signal. The external audio processor sends the converted acoustic signal to the internal device, which is presented as electrical pulses via individual electrodes and interpreted by the brain as sound.
When acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is preserved postoperatively, cochlear implant recipients are fit with an electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device. An EAS device combines acoustic and cochlear implant technology into a single device to provide acoustic amplification of the aidable low-frequency hearing region and electric stimulation of the mid-to-high frequency region. Cochlear implant recipients demonstrate a significant improvement when listening with EAS as compared to listening with acoustic or electric stimulation alone on measures of speech understanding and subjective benefit. The benefit is thought to be due to the addition of acoustic low-frequency cues.
The MED-EL SONNETEAS system was approved for commercial use in 2017 for adults (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria). Recently, the SONNET2EAS was approved and is currently MED-EL Corporation's newest EAS audio processor. While processing with the SONNET2EAS is currently the similar to that of the SONNETEAS, updated "front-end features", including improved artificial intelligence, are available within the device but have not been approved for commercial use.
Front-end processing occurs in the external audio processor prior to the coding of the signal. This processing is intended to optimize signal perception in variable environments (e.g. complex, noisy listening conditions). Currently, the SONNETEAS and SONNET2EAS have two microphones receiving the incoming signal, which are then manipulated to allow for wind noise reduction (WNR) and directional processing. These features are included within the currently approved "Automatic Sound Management (ASM) 2.0" and primarily seek to improve speech perception in the presence of noise. ASM 3.0 may offer cochlear implant listeners an improvement in speech understanding, specifically in complex or noisy listening situations, and potentially improve ease of listening in a dynamic environment. Listeners of devices with front-end processing demonstrate similar or improved performance than with devices without this technology - dependent on the listening situation.
The aim of the present investigation is to compare objective and subjective outcomes with the new front-end features to the current generation in EAS device users, using a within subject design.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic Sound Management 3.0 | Experimental | Device: Automatic Sound Management 3.0Current SONNETEAS listeners, who meet the eligibility criteria, will be tested with their current listening configuration and also fit with a SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0 (under the Investigational Device Exemption). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Adult (≥18 years at date of enrollment/initial evaluation)
- MED-EL Cochlear Implant System recipient
- Unilateral cochlear implant recipient
- Unaided threshold of ≤65 decibels (dB) Hearing Level (HL) at 125 Hz in implanted ear
- Six months or greater of SONNETEAS listening experience
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Unaided pure tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz) ≤60 dB HL in the contralateral (non-implanted) ear
- Hearing technology other than a conventional hearing aid in the contralateral ear
- Unwilling, unable, or geographic limitations to participate in study procedures
- Unwilling to complete datalogging with the processor
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic Sound Management 3.0The investigational front-end features include those within Automatic Sound Management 3.0 (i.e., Ambient Noise and Transient-Noise Reduction, and Adaptive Intelligence). Automatic Sound Management 3.0 will be accessed in the MAESTRO system software. The investigational front-end features within Automatic Sound Management 3.0 will be programmed in the SONNET2EAS processor. | Device | Automatic Sound Management 3.0 |
Primary outcome
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Testing open-set word understanding. Recorded CNC Words lists will be presented to the participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) Sentences in Diffuse Noise
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Testing open-set sentence understanding with background noise present. Recorded Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise will be presented to participant. Resultant score is a percentage of words correct with a range of 0% to 100%. A higher score is better. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Difference in reported device satisfaction on the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ)
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Participants report subjective device satisfaction by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective satisfaction reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Speech Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Participants report subjective device benefit when hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Spatial Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Time frame: 2 Years
Participants reported subjective device benefit for the directional, distance, and movement components of spatial hearing by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
Difference in reported subjective benefit on the Qualities Domain of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ)
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Participants reported subjective device benefit in qualities of hearing (including ease of listening and the naturalness, clarity, and identifiability of different sounds) by marking on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum benefit and 10 being maximal benefit. A higher score is greater subjective benefit reported by the participant. Scores obtained with the SONNETEAS will be compared to those obtained with the SONNET2EAS, programmed with Automatic Sound Management 3.0.
4 secondary outcomes
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear plugged/masked with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear plugged/masked with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Difference in Hearing-in-Noise-Test (HINT) sentences in diffuse noise Scores between listening with SONNET2EAS and contralateral ear with Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mild and AI Off.
Time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Aug 2021.
- Background: PubMed 23918623Adunka OF, Dillon MT, Adunka MC, King ER, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA. Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience. Laryngoscope. 2013 Oct;123(10):2509-15. doi: 10.1002/lary.23741. Epub 2013 Aug 5.
- Background: PubMed 31944127Billinger-Finke M, Bracker T, Weber A, Amann E, Anderson I, Batsoulis C. Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol. 2020 May;59(5):392-397. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
- Background: PubMed 15035561Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol. 2004 Feb;43(2):85-99. doi: 10.1080/14992020400050014.
- Background: PubMed 24244874Gifford RH, Dorman MF. THE PSYCHOPHYSICS OF LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC HEARING IN ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC STIMULATION (EAS) AND BIMODAL PATIENTS. J Hear Sci. 2012 May 1;2(2):33-44.
- Background: PubMed 24607490Gifford RH, Grantham DW, Sheffield SW, Davis TJ, Dwyer R, Dorman MF. Localization and interaural time difference (ITD) thresholds for cochlear implant recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Hear Res. 2014 Jun;312:28-37. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.02.007. Epub 2014 Mar 7.
- Background: PubMed 31524107Hagen R, Radeloff A, Stark T, Anderson I, Nopp P, Aschbacher E, Moltner A, Khajehnouri Y, Rak K. Microphone directionality and wind noise reduction enhance speech perception in users of the MED-EL SONNET audio processor. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020 Jan;21(1):53-65. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1664529. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
- Background: PubMed 14485785PETERSON GE, LEHISTE I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord. 1962 Feb;27:62-70. doi: 10.1044/jshd.2701.62. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29342054Pillsbury HC 3rd, Dillon MT, Buchman CA, Staecker H, Prentiss SM, Ruckenstein MJ, Bigelow DC, Telischi FF, Martinez DM, Runge CL, Friedland DR, Blevins NH, Larky JB, Alexiades G, Kaylie DM, Roland PS, Miyamoto RT, Backous DD, Warren FM, El-Kashlan HK, Slager HK, Reyes C, Racey AI, Adunka OF. Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2018 Mar;39(3):299-305. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001691.
- Background: PubMed 26049314Wolfe J, Neumann S, Marsh M, Schafer E, Lianos L, Gilden J, O'Neill L, Arkis P, Menapace C, Nel E, Jones M. Benefits of Adaptive Signal Processing in a Commercially Available Cochlear Implant Sound Processor. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Aug;36(7):1181-90. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000781.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Hearing Loss
Recruiting
Fall Risk Assessment and Speech Intelligibility Enhancement Using In-ear Device
Hearing Loss, Dizziness
Not yet recruiting
Mi2000 TICI - Post-market Implantation Study
Hearing Loss, Binaural, Cochlear Implantation
RecruitingObservational study
Natural History of Autosomal Dominant Hearing Loss
Hearing Loss
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
A Study Testing the Safety and Possible Benefits of an Ear Injection of a New Compound, Paliroden, in People With Type 2 Diabetes Who Have Difficulty Understanding Speech in Noisy Situations
Cochlear Synaptopathy
Recruiting
Assessing Pharmacy Technician Educational Training for the Provision of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in Rural Alabama and Mississippi Pharmacies
Bilateral Hearing Loss, Health Services Research
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Margaret T Dillon, AuD principal investigator
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Automatic Sound Management 3.0 in people with Hearing Loss and Hearing Disability, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Aug 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Difference in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) Words Scores (time frame: Up to 2 months after enrollment). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04721990, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Aug 2021.