This interventional study evaluates speech perception improvement in cochlear implant users, suggesting better outcomes with ForwardFocus technology.
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate adult cochlear implant (CI) users’ speech perception in spatially separated noise (S0Nrearhalf) with SCAN 2 FF (automated ForwardFocus) versus SCAN 2 (ForwardFocus off) with the Cochlear Kanso 3 Sound Processor. Secondary objectives included comparing speech perception in the S0N3 configuration, speech perception in quiet between the Kanso 3 Sound Processor and the Kanso 2 Sound Processor, and evaluating user satisfaction and subjective hearing performance with the Kanso 3 Sound Processor versus their own sound processor. Study Design: Single-center, within-subject, interventional study (NCT05619575). Setting: Purpose-built clinical research unit for auditory device evaluation. Patients: Twenty adults who were postlingually deafened, with at least 6 months of experience with a CI and 3 months of experience with the SCAN program, were recruited. Intervention: The Kanso 3 Sound Processor with the SCAN 2 FF program. Main Outcome Measure: Paired difference in speech reception threshold (dB SNR) between the SCAN 2 FF and SCAN 2 programs with the Kanso 3 Sound Processor, as measured using the Australian Sentence Test in Noise. Results: Mean speech recognition thresholds were significantly lower (better) with SCAN 2 FF compared with SCAN 2 in both the S0Nrearhalf and S0N3 configurations by 2.00 dB and 1.43 dB, respectively ( P < 0.001). Speech perception in quiet was comparable between the Kanso 3 and Kanso 2 Sound Processors. Participants reported high satisfaction with the Kanso 3 Sound Processor, and subjective hearing performance was similar to their own sound processor. Conclusions: This study reinforces the effectiveness of SCAN 2 FF in the Kanso 3 Sound Processor for improving speech perception in noise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: