HSC Section 8_April 2017

CROS VS BAHD FOR SINGLE-SIDED DEAFNESS

than for listening to the television or radio, and these ratings were higher than listening in reverberation. Mean SSQ scores for each subscale and each device are displayed in Figure 5. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. As SSQ data for each scale in each device condition were normally distributed, data were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA. A significant main effect of subscale was found (F(2,14) = 15.6, p = 0.0003, G 2 = 0.352), but there were no significant main effects or interactions related to device. Scores for the Spatial subscale for the BAHD were significantly lower than for the Qualities subscale for both the BAHD (t(7) = 5.61, p = 0.01) and the CROS (t(7) = 5.23, p = 0.02). Device Usage Data obtained from the BAHD and CROS diaries were used to analyze device usage. Depending on the time that elapsed between visits, some participants wore their hearing device a few days more or less than the 2-week trial period, but the average wearing time for each device was very similar. Paired t tests confirmed that there were no differences in the number of days that each device was worn or the number of hours that each device was worn per day. The BAHD was worn for an average of 13.9 days (SD = 2.1) and an average of 10 hours and 6 minutes each day (SD = 2 hr and 38 min). The CROS was worn for an average of 12.9 days (SD = 2.0) and an average of 10 hours and 0 minutes each day (SD = 3 hr and 15 min). One participant reported wearing both the BAHD and the CROS over the same four days. Participants were also asked to tally the situations in which they used the BAHD or CROS daily. Figure 6 shows the mean number of times that participants re- ported using each device in each of various conditions. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. A Friedman’s ANOVA found no significant differences in reported usage across conditions between the BAHD and CROS, but there were significant differences between conditions: the de- vices were worn significantly more often in the home

FIG. 6. The mean number of times that each device was reported to be used in the various settings. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

(one-on-one), in the car, and when walking than when doing other activities outdoors.

Device Preference When questioned about their preferred hearing device overall, four out of eight participants preferred the CROS to the BAHD, citing sound quality as the main reason for their choice. Three participants preferred the BAHD to the CROS, reporting that they did not like having to wear two hearing aids and struggled with retention of the CROS domes; however, two of them still preferred the sound quality of the CROS. One participant expressed no overall preference but preferred the BAHD for comfort and the CROS for sound quality. These choices varied for both BAHD models used in the experiment. For the four Cochlear BP100 users, two preferred their device to the CROS, one preferred the CROS, and one remained undecided. For the four Oticon Medical Ponto Pro users, one preferred their device to the CROS and three pre- ferred the CROS. Patients and care providers choose a rehabilitative option for SSD based on many complex factors. Some of these factors are aesthetics, comfort, bias and commit- ment of the healthcare provider, true long-term cost to the patient, restrictions that the technology places on the patient or future medical imaging, medical condition, and the ability to preview technology (e.g., with a headband). Only some of the factors affecting choice are related to the auditory experience, such as sound quality, processor noise, bandwidth, and feedback. Although the question- naires used here V the SSQ and BBSS V are particularly designed to probe the functional limitations of SSD, it is likely that global non-auditory factors will influence like or dislike of a device and so affect scores even within these instruments. DISCUSSION

FIG. 5. Mean ratings for each device on the three subscales of the SSQ. Scores correspond to perceived hearing ability on a 10-point scale. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

Otology & Neurotology, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2015

152