An Audibility Model of the Bone Conduction Device during Headband Trial in Single-sided Deaf Subjects.

<p><strong>Data of the study, including primary data, calculated data, analysis results and graphs.</strong></p> <p><strong>Related software</strong><br> <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7295482">zenodo.7295482</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract<br> Objective</strong><br> Modelling&nbsp;the head-shadow-effect compensation and speech intelligibility outcomes, we studied the&nbsp;benefits of fitting a bone conduction device (BCD) during&nbsp;the&nbsp;headband&nbsp;trial in single-sided deafened (SSD) subjects.</p> <p><strong>Design</strong><br> The participants&rsquo; BCD settings were retrospectively used for measurements on the skull simulator. The sensation levels of the Bone-Conduction and Air-Conduction sound paths were compared, modelling three spatial conditions with the speech in quiet. When the difference between sensation levels was equivalent or greater than zero, this was scored as full head-shadow-effect compensation. We calculated the phoneme score using the Speech Intelligibility Index for the three conditions in quiet and seven in noise.</p> <p><strong>Study sample</strong><br> Data from eighty-five SSD adults fitted with a BCD during the headband trial.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong><br> According to our model, most subjects did not achieve a full head-shadow-effect compensation with the signal at the BCD side and in front. The modelled speech intelligibility in the quiet condition did not improve with the transcutaneous BCD compared with the unaided condition. In noise, we found a slight improvement in some specific conditions and minimal worsening in others.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong><br> Based on an audibility model, this study challenges the fundamentals of a trial period with a transcutaneous BCD in SSD subjects.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>