Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026

09:44
Neuro-rehabilitation Approach for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Published on: January 25, 2016
19.2K
A Randomized Crossover Study in Single-Sided Deafness Comparing a Cartilage Conduction CROS System and an
Ken Takaki1, Akinori Kashio2, Etsushi Nozaki1
1Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Systems, Graduate School of Engineering.
Summary
Cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices offer comparable hearing-in-noise benefits to air-conduction (AC) devices for single-sided deafness (SSD) patients, with both showing subjective improvements.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Hearing Science
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Single-sided deafness (SSD) presents significant challenges in hearing, particularly in noisy environments and with sound localization.
- Contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing devices aim to improve hearing for SSD patients by transmitting sound from the unaidable ear to the hearing ear.
- Cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices offer an alternative to traditional air-conduction (AC) CROS devices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the noninferiority of cartilage conduction contralateral routing of signals (CC-CROS) devices versus air-conduction CROS (AC-CROS) devices in single-sided deafness (SSD) patients.
- To evaluate objective and subjective performance metrics in realistic listening conditions.
Main Methods:
- A prospective, single-subject randomized crossover study was conducted with nine adults with severe to profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
- Patients used both CC-CROS and AC-CROS devices for two weeks each in a randomized order.
- Outcomes included speech-in-noise tests (speech reception threshold), sound localization accuracy, and subjective questionnaires (APHAB, SSQ-12).
Main Results:
- Both CC-CROS and AC-CROS significantly improved speech reception thresholds in ambient noise when speech originated from the front or the unaidable ear side.
- AC-CROS showed a significant benefit when speech came from the better ear side, while CC-CROS did not.
- Sound localization was generally worsened by both devices, but subjective measures (APHAB, SSQ-12) indicated perceived benefits from both CC-CROS and AC-CROS.
Conclusions:
- CC-CROS devices demonstrate noninferior hearing-in-noise performance compared to AC-CROS devices, with the exception of speech presented to the better ear in ambient noise.
- Subjective assessments confirmed that patients recognized the effectiveness of both CC-CROS and AC-CROS devices in improving their hearing experience.

