European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 10, pp 2729–2737 | Cite as

Evaluation of wireless Bluetooth devices to improve recognition of speech and sentences when using a mobile phone in bone conduction device recipients

  • Tae Hoon Kong
  • Chanbeom Kwak
  • Woojae Han
  • Young Joon SeoEmail author



To evaluate the effect of a wireless Bluetooth device (WBD) in word and sentence recognition in patients with bone conduction devices (BCDs) while using mobile phones.


We performed a prospective study evaluating speech and sentence recognition in both quiet and noised conditions. A total of nine patients, audiologically eligible for BCDs, were included. Based on their hearing impairment type and severity, subjects were divided into “BCD only” and “BCD with HA” groups. The speech and sentence recognition scores of each condition were compared by nonparametric methods.


Both the “BCD only” and “BCD with HA” groups had higher scores in the quiet condition than in the noised condition in word and sentence recognition tests, irrespective of whether the WBD was used. The benefit from using a WBD was greater in the noised condition. There were significant differences in the word recognition test results before and after using the WBD in the “BCD only” group, and in both the word and sentence recognition tests results before and after using the WBD bimodally in the noised condition in the “BCD with HA” group.


WBDs improve word and sentence recognition in adult BCD bone recipients when they use mobile phones. WBD use provides additional benefits in “BCD with HA” patients in a bimodal situation.


Bone conduction device Bone-anchored hearing aid Wireless Bluetooth device Speech in noise Hearing aid 



This research was supported by Basic Science research program through the national research foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2019K1A3A1A47000527) and by the Gangwon Institute for Regional Program Evaluation grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy) (No. R0005797).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study was supported by Cochlear Ltd. and Resound Ltd. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Supplementary material

405_2019_5516_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 kb)


  1. 1.
    Clamp PJ, Briggs RJ (2015) The Cochlear Baha 4 Attract System - design concepts, surgical technique and early clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices 12:223–230. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hakansson B, Tjellstrom A, Rosenhall U, Carlsson P (1985) The bone-anchored hearing aid: Principal design and a psychoacoustical evaluation. Acta Otolaryngol 100:229–239. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iseri M, Orhan KS, Kara A, Durgut M, Ozturk M, Topdag M, Caliskan S (2014) A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device - the Baha(R) Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 24:59–64. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hougaard DD, Boldsen SK, Jensen AM, Hansen S, Thomassen PC (2017) A multicenter study on objective and subjective benefits with a transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid device: first Nordic results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3011–3019. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kwon JA, Seo YJ (2017) Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 38:473–483. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saroul N, Akkari M, Pavier Y, Gilain L, Mom T (2013) Long-term benefit and sound localization in patients with single-sided deafness rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-conduction device. Otol Neurotol 34:111–114. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siau RT, Dhillon B, Siau D, Green KM (2016) Bone-anchored hearing aids in conductive and mixed hearing losses: why do patients reject them? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:3117–3122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Boheim K, Alexander N, Arnolder C, D'Haese P (2006) Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive? Int J Audiol 45:446–453. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolfe J, Morais Duke M, Schafer E, Cire G, Menapace C, O'Neill L (2016) Evaluation of a wireless audio streaming accessory to improve mobile telephone performance of cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 55:75–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu Y, Tahmina Q, Runge C, Friedland DR (2013) The perception of telephone-processed speech by combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Trends Amplif 17:189–196. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milchard AJ, Cullington HE (2004) An investigation into the effect of limiting the frequency bandwidth of speech on speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 43:356–362. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Picou EM, Ricketts TA (2013) Efficacy of hearing-aid based telephone strategies for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 24:59–70. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vroegop JL, Dingemanse JG, Homans NC, Goedegebure A (2017) Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 56:643–649. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gawecki W, Stieler OM, Balcerowiak A, Komar D, Gibasiewicz R, Karlik M, Szyfter-Harris J, Wrobel M (2016) Surgical, functional and audiological evaluation of new Baha((R)) Attract system implantations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:3123–3130. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Byun SW, Oh SH, Chae SW, Park SN, Shim YJ, Cho KK (2007) Compromises between the frequencies of the colloquial phonemes and those of a new monosyllabic words list in Korean. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 50:573–578Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hahm TY (1986) Complementary study on construction of Korean word lists for speech audiometry. Inje Med J 7:1–19Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwartz SR, Kobylk D (2016) Outcomes of bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) for single sided deafness in nontraditional candidates. Otol Neurotol 37:1608–1613. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faber HT, Nelissen RC, Kramer SE, Cremers CW, Snik AF, Hol MK (2015) Bone-anchored hearing implants in single-sided deafness patients: long-term use and satisfaction by gender. Laryngoscope 125:2790–2795. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nelissen RC, den Besten CA, Faber HT, Dun CA, Mylanus EA, Hol MK (2016) Loading of osseointegrated implants for bone conduction hearing at 3 weeks: 3-year stability, survival, and tolerability. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:1731–1737. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck SurgeryYonsei University Wonju College of MedicineGangwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Laboratory of Hearing Technology, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Graduate SchoolHallym UniversityChuncheonSouth Korea
  3. 3.Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural SciencesHallym UniversityChuncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations