Performance Outcomes of Nucleus® 6
SmartSound® iQ Technology with the First
Cochlear Implant Scene Classifier
Introduction
Almost all listening environments contain some level of background noise, originating from a variety of sources with a
range of spectral characteristics. Stationary or diffuse noise tends to have relatively low amplitude modulations which
typically fall outside the speech spectrum (Plomp, 1983; Rosen, 1992) such as noise from traffic or room ventilation
systems. In contrast, competing speech noise often has acoustic properties very similar to those of the target speech,
producing a more challenging listening situation (Festen & Plomp, 1990). Background noise can also be generated from
environmental sources such as wind, which has a typically intense low-frequency spectrum that is particularly annoying to
individuals using hearing devices.
Given the many different existing noise types, and that combinations of these may be unique to every cochlear implant
(CI) recipient’s listening environments, no single input processing or sound coding technology is sufficient to provide
maximum performance benefits and comfort. A multifaceted approach involving a range of technologies specifically
designed to target different noise situations is required.
Nucleus SmartSound and SmartSound 2 technology
CochlearTM has actively researched solutions to overcome the challenges of listening in noise, culminating in the
introduction of Nucleus® SmartSound® technology in 2005. SmartSound encompassed a variety of input processing
technologies including Automatic Sensitivity Control (ASC), channel-specific Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimisation
(ADRO®), together with a range of microphone directionality (Patrick et al., 2006). ASC is a slow acting algorithm
designed to automatically reduce the level of noise in a noisy environment (Seligman & Whitford, 1995: Patrick et al.,
2006), while ADRO is a pre-processing technology that continuously adjusts the gain in each channel to place the signal
optimally within the electrical hearing dynamic range (Blamey, 2005).
The use of directional microphones has proven to be very effective in reducing the interference of noise in hearing aid
recipients (Killion, 2004; Bentler, 2005), and were first introduced into Nucleus sound processors in the mid 1980’s
(Blamey et al., 1987). SmartSound technologies included the first dual microphone adaptive beamforming algorithm
called Beam®, shown to deliver significant hearing benefit in competing (multi-talker babble) noise (Spriet et al., 2007;
Chung & Zeng, 2009; Hersbach et al., 2012; Wolfe et al., 2012).
The release of SmartSound 2 in 2009 delivered further noise management advances with the Nucleus 5 CP810 Sound
Processor and CR110 Remote Assistant. SmartSound 2 offered the flexibility to combine different input processing
options for customised Everyday, Noise, Focus and Music programs. The use of calibrated, dual, omni-directional
microphones provided an expanded suite of directionality including the fixed super-directionality of zoom processing,
ideal for attenuating constant distracting noise sources. Studies have demonstrated the benefits of having a range of
microphone directionality patterns available, benefitting users across a range of listening environments (Preves et al,
1999; Powers & Hamacher, 2002; Wolfe et al., 2012).
SmartSound iQ with SCAN
The recent release of the Nucleus 6 (CP900 series) sound processor delivers the newest generation of SmartSound
technology called SmartSound iQ (SSiQ), with an industry first automatic scene classifier termed SCAN. SmartSound
iQ delivers several new options for improved hearing performance and listening comfort in noise, including an
advanced background noise reduction algorithm (SNR-NR) and a wind noise detection and reduction algorithm (WNR).
SmartSound iQ noise reduction (SNR-NR) is designed specifically for CI sound processor requirements to attenuate
constant background noises irrespective of their direction. This technology detects the background noise level in each
frequency channel, estimates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each channel ­— for each time sample — and attenuates
those channels having low SNRs which are indicative of background noise. SNR-NR acts instantaneously to reduce
background noise levels while retaining speech and other important signals (Hersbach et al., 2012; Mauger et al., 2012).
Annoyance from wind noise is a common complaint from hearing aid and cochlear implant recipients. Wind noise is
even more problematic with directional microphone systems due to greater low frequency noise from wind (Chung et
al., 2009; Chung & McKibben, 2011) and distortions to microphone directionality (Chung, 2012). With SmartSound iQ,
when wind noise is detected, the microphone directionality is optimised for use in wind. Specifically designed multichannel compressors are then activated to reduce the low frequency wind noise while retaining other sounds. A pilot
study evaluating wind noise reduction in the Nucleus cochlear implant sound processors indicated positive speech
understanding and listening quality results (Goorevich et al., 2012b).
Until now, SmartSound technologies were typically provided to recipients via a number of different listening programs,
manually switched using a remote assistant or via the processor buttons. In this format, a number of factors may
prevent many cochlear implant recipients from achieving their best hearing performance at all times including, dexterity
issues, the need to manually change programs, uncertainty as to when to change programs, and the possibility of
selecting the ‘wrong’ program in specific listening environments. To address this, the Nucleus 6 sound processor offers
a scene classifier (SCAN), providing automatic detection of a user’s listening environment, and automatic selection of
appropriate settings without the need for multiple processor programs or manual program changes.
Many state-of-the-art hearing aids currently use ’environmental classification‘, whereby the audio input signal is
categorised into one or more ’scenes‘ to determine appropriate characteristics for automatic program selection (Allegro
et al., 2001; Büchler et al., 2005). Recent pilot research has indicated that this type of automatic scene classification and
program selection can benefit cochlear implant recipients as well (Case et al., 2011; Goorevich et al., 2012a).
2 | Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013
The SCAN program analyses microphone input signals and classifies the sound environment into one of six scenes
(Speech in Noise, Speech, Noise, Wind, Quiet and Music). For each scene, SCAN selects the most appropriate
microphone directionality pattern (standard, fixed or adaptive) and activates the appropriate scene technology based
on the determined environment. Changes in settings are transitioned smoothly to avoid any abrupt or disruptive
listening percept for the recipient. In addition to controlling the input processing technologies for each scene, SCAN
also stores the scene classification on the Nucleus 6 sound processor. Datalogging of scene information can be
reviewed off-line by a clinician for troubleshooting, device counselling and/or program optimisation, offering objective
insights.
This paper presents the performance outcomes of adults fitted with the Cochlear Nucleus 6 sound processor using
SmartSound iQ with SCAN.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
Twenty-one Australian adults, using a mix of Nucleus CI500 Series and CI24RE cochlear implants, participated in the
study. The mean age for this group was 67.8 years, with a range of 49 to 90 years. Average length of cochlear implant
use was 5.6 years, ranging from one to 15 years.
Study design
The study used a repeated-measures, single-subject design, in which each subject served as his or her own control.
Subjects were evaluated using their existing Nucleus 5 (CP810) sound processor and the new Nucleus 6 (CP900) sound
processor with SmartSound iQ. Sentence perception in noise with different listening programs was compared for each
subject across five test sessions, and the order in which the programs were tested was counter-balanced to control
for order effects. Prior to testing, all recipients had a minimum of two weeks use of the Nucleus 6 sound processor to
acclimatise to the default program.
Listening programs
Study participants used their preferred listening program in noise with their Nucleus 5 sound processor, with 57% of
subjects choosing the Noise program (with zoom processing) and 24% choosing the Focus program (with Beam). The
remaining 19% used a variety of other listening programs with standard microphone directionality.
Speech perception scores with their Nucleus 6 sound processor were obtained using a variety of programs with differing
combinations of input processing options including the default automatic SCAN program. The programs tested are
listed in Table 1.
Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013 3
Table 1: A description of technologies used in sound processor programs. Tilde (~) denotes the technology as selected by the clinician/subject for listening in noise.
Asterisk (*) denotes the use of a specific technology for a given program.
Audibility
Microphone Directionality
System
Program
AGC
ASC
ADRO
Standard
zoom
Beam
Nucleus 5
Preferred
*
~
~
~
~
~
Nucleus 6
No
SmartSound
Everyday
*
*
*
*
SCAN
*
*
*
Noise Reduction
SNR-NR
*
*
automatic
*
Speech perception
All testing in noise was conducted using the Australian sentence test in noise (AuSTIN), which is an adaptive SRT
sentence test using either speech weighted noise (SWN) or 4-talker babble (4TB) as the noise source (Dawson et al.,
2013). This test determines the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for 50% sentence intelligibility with each listening program.
The target speech signal was presented at a fixed 65 dB SPL (RMS) level from a speaker positioned in front of the subject.
Testing was conducted using both SWN and 4-talker babble noise which was increased or decreased based on the
subjects’ response. Both noise types were tested in two different spatial configurations, S0N0 (signal at 0 degrees, noise
at 0 degrees) and S0N3 (signal at 0 degrees, noise at 90, 180 and 270 degrees). All speech and noise configurations had
the speaker locations at 1.2m from the listening position. Each test run comprised 20 sentences from which individual
SRTs were calculated. Two SRTs for the same test condition were then averaged to determine each subject’s mean SRT
score.
Results were analysed using a repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Newman-Keuls
comparisons to determine the effect of program.
4 | Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013
Results
1. Significant directional microphone benefit shown
in 4 talker babble
Figure 1 shows the group mean SRTs at 65 dB SPL in spatially separated (S0N90,180,270) 4TB noise with the
Nucleus 6 sound processor. A lower SRT (dB SNR) value indicates an improved speech perception outcome. The SCAN
program automatically selected adaptive directionality (Beam) in this condition and achieved a group mean SRT of
-3.9 dB which was significantly better than the ‘No SmartSound’ and ‘Everyday’ conditions with SRT’s of 0.0 and -0.4
dB, respectively, using standard microphone directionality (p<0.001). The average SRT benefit of SCAN over the ‘No
SmartSound’ and ‘Everyday’ conditions was 3.9 and 3.5 dB, respectively.
S
N
N
4TB | 65 dB SPL | N=21
N
0.0
NO SMARTSOUND
-0.04
SMARTSOUND iQ
WITH
SCAN PROGRAM
SMARTSOUND 2
EVERYDAY
Results reinforce that adaptive
microphone directionality such as
Beam, is valuable for listening to
speech in noise where the noise
source is to the rear and sides of
the recipient
-0.37
SRT (dB)
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.86
-4.0
-5.0
***
***
-6.0
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
ADAPTIVE (Beam)
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
Figure 1: Shows the mean SRT scores presented in 4TB using the S0N3 speaker configuration.
Error bars show standard error of the means. Asterisks show significant differences (***p<0.001).
Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013 5
2. Noise reduction (SNR-NR) benefit
in speech weighted noise
Figure 2 shows the group mean SRTs at 65 dB SPL in SWN with speech and noise coincident (S0N0) using the Nucleus
6 sound processor. In this challenging listening condition where both speech and noise are delivered from a speaker in
front of the listener, a lower SRT value indicates an improved speech perception outcome. The SCAN program using
SNR-NR in this speech and noise condition resulted in a group mean SRT of -2.9 dB, significantly better (p<0.001) than
the ‘No SmartSound’ and ‘Everyday’ SRTs of -0.58 and -1.3 dB. No significant difference in SRT was shown between the
‘No SmartSound’ and ‘Everyday’ conditions. The average SRT benefit offered by SCAN over the ‘No SmartSound’ and
‘Everyday’conditions was 2.3 and 1.6 dB, respectively.
S+N
SWN | 65 dB SPL | N=21
0.0
NO SMARTSOUND
SMARTSOUND iQ
WITH
SCAN PROGRAM
SMARTSOUND 2
EVERYDAY
-0.58
SRT (dB)
-1.0
-1.33
-2.0
-2.88
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
***
***
-6.0
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
FIXED (zoom)
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
Figure 2: Shows the mean SRT scores presented in SWN using the S0N0 speaker configuration.
Error bars show standard error of the mean. Asterisks show significant differences (***p<0.001).
6 | Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013
The improvement shown is
predominantly due to the
SNR-NR algorithm rather
than directional microphones
since the speech and noise
signals are co-located
in this condition. These
results suggest that existing
recipients will gain significant
performance benefits in noise
by accessing new Smart Sound
iQ noise reduction technology.
3. SCAN shows performance benefits for
non-SmartSound recipients
Figure 3 shows the mean SRTs at 65 dB SPL in both 4TB and SWN using the Nucleus 6 sound processor with a spatially
separated (S0N90,180,270) speaker setup. As in previous figures the ‘No SmartSound’ condition represents recipients
who use only standard microphone directionality with all other technologies disabled. A lower SRT value indicated an
improved speech perception outcome. The SCAN program using microphone directionality and SNR-NR, resulted in a
group mean SRT of -3.9 dB in 4TB and -7.6 dB in SWN, significantly better than the ‘No SmartSound’ condition which
resulted in SRTs of 0.0 and -2.8 dB, respectively (p<0.001).
S
N
N
N
0.0
4TB
NO SMARTSOUND
| 65 dB SPL | N=21
SMARTSOUND iQ
0.0
SWN
NO SMARTSOUND
SMARTSOUND iQ
-0.04
-1.0
SRT (dB)
SRT (dB)
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.83
-3.0
-3.86
-4.0
-5.0
-4.0
-5.0
***
-6.0
-6.0
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
ADAPTIVE (Beam)
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
-7.0
-7.63
-8.0
STANDARD
DIRECTIONALITY
***
FIXED (zoom)
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
Figure 3: Shows the mean SRT scores presented in 4TB and SWN using the S0N3 speaker configuration.
Error bars show standard error of the mean. Asterisks show significant differences (***p<0.001).
The improvement shown results from directional microphone
algorithms (zoom and Beam) and SNR-NR. These results suggest
that use of SmartSound iQ technologies offer substantial hearing
performance benefits, and that recipients who do not currently
access them due to clinical fitting practices, choice of sound
processor, or personal preference will gain significant hearing
benefits with the SCAN program.
Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013 7
4. SCAN shows performance benefits
for experienced SmartSound users
Figure 4 shows the mean SRTs at 65 dB SPL in SWN (S0N0 and S0N90,180,270) using Nucleus 5 and Nucleus 6 sound
processors. Recipients in this study are experienced SmartSound users, more than 80% of whom routinely switch to a
directional SmartSound 2 program for listening in noise. For the S0N0 configuration, Nucleus 6 with SCAN resulted in
a group mean SRT of -2.9 dB which was significantly better than the Nucleus 5 condition which resulted in a mean SRT
of -1.2 dB (p<0.001). For the S0N90,180,270 condition, a mean SRT of -7.6 dB was obtained with Nucleus 6, which was
significantly better than the -6.3 dB SRT obtained for the Nucleus 5 condition (p<0.001).
S+N
S
SWN | 65 dB SPL | N=21
N
N
N
SRT (dB)
-1.0
0.0
NUCLEUS 5
NUCLEUS 6
-1.0
-1.23
-2.0
-2.88
-3.0
-4.0
SRT (dB)
0.0
NUCLEUS 6
NUCLEUS 5
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
***
-5.0
-5.0
-6.0
-6.0
PREFERRED NOISE
PROGRAM
FIXED (zoom)
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
-6.35
-7.0
-7.63
-8.0
***
PREFERRED NOISE
FIXED (zoom)
PROGRAM
DIRECTIONALITY
ASC + ADRO
Figure 4: Shows the mean SRT scores presented in SWN using S0N0 and S0N3 speaker configuration.
Error bars show standard error of the mean. Asterisks show significant differences (***p<0.001).
Results suggest that even experienced users of a Nucleus 5 Sound
Processor with SmartSound 2 are likely to gain improved speech
understanding in noise (in addition to reduced inconvenience from
manually switching sound processor settings) by upgrading to Nucleus
6 and accessing SNR-NR and the automated SCAN technology.
8 | Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013
Conclusion
All recipients successfully upgraded to the Nucleus 6 system and preferred SCAN as their default listening program.
SmartSound iQ and SCAN technologies produced significant benefits for listening in both steady-state and multi-talker
babble noise when compared to ‘No SmartSound’ and ‘Everyday’ listening programs. The Nucleus 6 sound processor
with SmartSound iQ provides significant performance improvements over a standard microphone configuration in
spatially separated noise. The availability of a clinically relevent background noise reduction algorithm (SNR-NR)
provides additional performance benefits for Nucleus 6 recipients, especially when tested in SWN.
For recipients with a Nucleus 5 sound processor converting to a Nucleus 6 sound processor, these study findings
demonstrate the new SmartSound iQ technology will provide hearing benefits. With the automatic scene classifier
(SCAN) in the Nucleus 6 system enabled for routine use, optimal and consistent scene selection is automatically
achieved in each sound environment. Comprehension improved significantly over levels achieved with the Nucleus 5
system.
Cochlear continues to deliver performance benefits. The industry’s first scene classifier (SCAN) will enable existing and
newly implanted recipients to easily and automatically enhance their comprehension and listening experience.
Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013 9
NOTES
10 | Nucleus 6 SmartSound iQ | December 2013
References
Allegro S, Büchler M, Launer S (2001). Automatic sound classification
inspired by auditory scene analysis. In: Proc European Conf Sig Proc,
(EURASIP).
Hersbach AA, Arora K, Mauger SJ, Dawson PW (2012). Combining
directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a
clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant
users. Ear and Hearing 33:13-23.
Bentler RA (2005). The effectiveness of microphones and noise
reduction schemes in digital hearing aids: a systematic review of the
evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 16, 473-84.
Killion, MC (2004). Myths about hearing in noise and directional
microphones. Hearing Review, 11(2).
Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Clark GM, Seligman P (1987). Acoustic
parameters measured by a formant estimating speech processor for a
multiple-channel cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 82(1), 38-47.
Mauger SJ, Dawson PW, Hersbach AA (2012). Perceptually optimized gain
function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131:327-336.
Blamey PJ (2005). Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a
digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants.
Trends Amplif 9:77-98.
Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ (2006). The development of the Nucleus
Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 10:175-200.
Büchler M, Allegro S, Launer S (2005). Sound Classification in Hearing
Aids Inspired by Auditory Scene Analysis. EURASIP Journal of Applied
Signal Processing 18:2991-3002.
Case S, Goorevich M, Gorrie J, Nesselroth Y, Plant K, Knight M (2011).
Evaluation of an environmental classifier with adult cochlear implant
recipients using the CP810 sound processor. In: CI2011.
Chung K (2012). Wind noise in hearing aids: II. Effect of microphone
directivity. Int J Audiol 51:29-42.
Chung K, McKibben N (2011). Microphone directionality, pre-emphasis
filter, and wind noise in cochlear implants. Journal of the American
Academy of Audiology 22:586-600.
Chung K, Mongeau L, McKibben N (2009). Wind noise in hearing aids
with directional and omnidirectional microphones: polar characteristics
of behind-the-ear hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 125:2243-2259.
Chung K, Zeng FG (2009). Using hearing aid adaptive directional
microphones to enhance cochlear implant performance. Hearing
Research 250:27-37.
Dawson P, Hersbach AA, Swanson B (2013). An Adaptive Australian
Sentence Test in Noise (AuSTIN). Ear and Hearing 23(5), 592-600
Festen JM, Plomp R (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering
speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal
hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 88(4), 1725-36.
Goorevich M, Case S, Gorrie J, Nesselroth Y, Plant K (2012a). Feasibility
of an Environmental Classifier with Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.
In: Cochlear Implant Conference and other implantable technologies
Baltimore: John Hopkins Medical School.
Goorevich M, Zakis JA, Case S, Harvey T, Holmberg P, Schall FSJ,
Heasman J, Knight M (2012b). Effect of a wind noise reduction
algorithm on cochlear implant sound processing. In: 12th International
Conference on Cochlear Implants and other implantable technologies
Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Plomp, R (1983). Perception of speech as a modulated signal, in
Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,
Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1-6 August, The Congress, pp. 29-40.
Powers, TA, & Hamacher, V (2002). Three-microphone instrument is
designed to extend benefits of directionality. The Hearing Journal, 55(10),
38-40.
Preves, DA, Sammeth, CA, & Wynne, MK (1999). Field trial evaluations
of a switched directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10(5), 273.
Rosen, S (1992). Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and
linguistic aspects, Philos Trans R Soc London, Ser. B 336, 367-373.
Seligman, P, & Whitford, L, (1995). Adjustment of appropriate signal
levels in the Spectra 22 and mini speech processors. The Annals of
Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. Supplement, 166, 172.
Spriet A, van Deun L, Eftaxidias K, Laneau J, Moonen M, van Dijk B, van
Wieringen A, Wouters J. (2007). Speech understanding in background
noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the
Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing 28(1), 6272.
Wolfe J, Parkinson A, Schafer EC, Gilden J, Rehwinkel K, Mansanares
J, Coughlan E, Wright J, Torres J, Gannaway S (2012). Benefit of a
commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone
beamforming: a multi-center study. Otology & Neurotology: official
publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology
Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 33:553560.
As the leading global expert in implantable hearing solutions, Cochlear is
dedicated to bringing the gift of sound to people all over the world. For thirty
years, Cochlear has pioneered this technology, helping hundreds of thousands
of people reconnect to their families and friends.
Along with the industry’s largest investment in research and development,
we continue to partner with leading international researchers and hearing
professionals, ensuring that we are at the forefront of hearing science.
For our customers, that means access to our latest technologies throughout
their lives, and the ongoing support they need.
That is why seven out of ten people worldwide who choose a cochlear implant
choose Cochlear as their hearing partner.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the researchers, audiologists and
recipients who contributed to the data and analysis reported in this paper.
Cochlear Ltd (ABN 96 002 618 073) 1 University Avenue, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia Tel: +61 2 9428 6555 Fax: +61 2 9428 6352
Cochlear Ltd (ABN 96 002 618 073) 14 Mars Road, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia Tel: +61 2 9428 6555 Fax: +61 2 9428 6352
Cochlear Americas 13059 E Peakview Avenue, Centennial, CO 80111, USA Tel: +1 303 790 9010 Fax: +1 303 792 9025
Cochlear Canada Inc 2500-120 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, ON M5H 1T1, Canada Tel: +1 416 972 5082 Fax: +1 416 972 5083
Cochlear AG EMEA Headquarters, Peter Merian-Weg 4, 4052 Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 205 0404 Fax: +41 61 205 0405
Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG Karl-Wiechert-Allee 76A, 30625 Hannover, Germany Tel: +49 511 542 770 Fax: +49 511 542 7770
Cochlear Europe Ltd 6 Dashwood Lang Road, Bourne Business Park, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 2HJ, United Kingdom Tel: +44 1932 26 3400 Fax: +44 1932 26 3426
Cochlear Benelux NV Schaliënhoevedreef 20 i, B-2800 Mechelen, Belgium Tel: +32 15 79 55 11 Fax: +32 15 79 55 70
Cochlear France S.A.S. Route de l’Orme aux Merisiers, Z.I. Les Algorithmes – Bât. Homère, 91190 Saint-Aubin, France Tel: +33 805 200 016 Fax: +33 160 196 499
Cochlear Italia S.r.l. Via Larga 33, 40138 Bologna, Italy Tel: +39 051 601 53 11 Fax: +39 051 39 20 62
Cochlear Nordic AB Konstruktionsvägen 14, 435 33 Mölnlycke, Sweden Tel +46 31 335 14 61 Fax +46 31 335 14 60
Cochlear Tıbbi Cihazlar ve Sağlık Hizmetleri Ltd. Şti. Çubuklu Mah. Boğaziçi Cad., Boğaziçi Plaza No: 6/1, Kavacık, TR-34805 Beykoz-Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: +90 216 538 5900 Fax: +90 216 538 5919
Cochlear (HK) Limited Unit 1810, Hopewell Centre, 183 Queens Road East, Wan Chai, Hong Kong SAR Tel: +852 2530 5773 Fax: +852 2530 5183
Cochlear Korea Ltd 1st floor, Cheongwon building, 828-5, Yuksam dong, Kangnam gu, Seoul, Korea Tel: +82 2 533 4663 Fax: +82 2 533 8408
Cochlear Limited (Singapore Branch) 6 Sin Ming Road, #01-16 Sin Ming Plaza Tower 2, Singapore 575585 Tel: +65 6553 3814 Fax: +65 6451 4105
Cochlear Medical Device (Beijing) Co Ltd Unit 2208 Gemdale Tower B, 91 Jianguo Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022, P.R. China Tel: +86 10 5909 7800
Fax: +86 10 5909 7900
Cochlear Medical Device Company India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Platina Building, Plot No C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051,
India Tel: +91 22 6112 1111 Fax: +91 22 6112 1100
Nihon Cochlear Co Ltd Ochanomizu-Motomachi Bldg, 2-3-7 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Tel: +81 3 3817 0241 Fax: +81 3 3817 0245
www.cochlear.com
Cochlear, Hear now. And always, Nucleus, and the elliptical logo are either trademarks
or registered trademarks of Cochlear Limited.
ADRO is a registered trademark of Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd
© Cochlear Limited 2013 WC 464486 ISS3