Search Results

The contact forte Alpha is a Processor and is intended for use with the Sophono Headband or Softband (no age limitations), or with the Sophono Magnetic Implant (patients 5 years of age and up) for the following patients and indications:

• Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses, who can still benefit from amplification of sound. The pure tone average (PTA) bone conduction (BC) threshold for the indicated ear should be better than 45 dB HL (measured at 0.5, 1.2, and 3 kHz).

• Bilateral fitting is applicable for most patients having a symmetrically conductive or mixed hearing loss. The difference between the left and right sides' BC thresholds should be less than 10 dB on average measured at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, or less than 15 dB at individual frequencies.

• Patients who have a profound sensorineural hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the opposite ear, who for some reason will not or cannot use an Air Conduction Contralateral Routing of Signal (AC CROS). The pure tone average (PTA) air conduction (AC) threshold of the hearing ear should be better than 20 dB HL (measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz).

The contact forte Alpha Processor is a sound processor that converts sound into mechanical vibrations. The sound processor is magnetically connected to a Sophono Headband, Sophono Softband or Sophono Attract Magnetic Spacer by the integrated metal disk. Sound enters the audio processor through the microphones, which then goes through a DSP chip for signal processing. The output of the DSP chip drives an electromechanical transducer, which converts the signal into mechanical vibrations. These vibrations are transferred to the patient's skin through the Sophono Headband, Sophono Softband or the Sophono Attract magnetic spacer. The vibrations are carried through the patient's skin and skull to the cochlea where they are perceived as sound. The device is designed for use on either the right or left side application. The device has a "oval" housing with a symmetrical design ( for right or left side application). The material used: Plastic contact with intact skin;

The FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the "contact forte Alpha" bone-conduction hearing aid (K243041) outlines performance data demonstrating the device's substantial equivalence to its predicate, the Sophono Alpha 2.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly present a formal table of quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding performance numbers for the contact forte Alpha versus the Sophono Alpha 2. Instead, it relies on qualitative statements of equivalence and "good concordance" for certain measurements. The core acceptance criterion seems to be demonstrating comparable performance and no significant difference in key audiometric and output parameters compared to the predicate.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size for Field Tests: 5 patients.
• Data Provenance: The document states "Field testing was conducted with five patients". Given the applicant, BHM-Tech Produktionsgesellschaft mbH, is located in Austria, and the device is manufactured there, it is highly probable the field tests were conducted in Austria or a similar European setting. The trials are implicitly prospective in nature, as they involve testing the contact forte Alpha in real-world conditions on human subjects.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the "ground truth" for the field test data beyond the general statement that "audiometric thresholds and speech perception thresholds" were assessed. For a hearing device, establishing ground truth would typically involve audiologists performing standardized audiological assessments. The document implies a direct comparison of the subject device and predicate on the same individuals, where the individuals' own established hearing thresholds serve as a baseline, and the objective measurements (audiometric thresholds, speech perception thresholds) and subjective reports are the core data points.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not describe any formal adjudication method beyond comparing the subject and predicate devices on the same patients and collecting objective measurements and subjective feedback. There is no mention of "2+1" or "3+1" methods typically used for image-based diagnostics. The comparison is direct and within-subject for the field test.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

This is not applicable to this device. The contact forte Alpha is a bone-conduction hearing aid, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool where human readers/interpreters would "improve" with AI assistance. The performance evaluation focuses on the device's ability to amplify and transmit sound comparably to a predicate device, as perceived by patients and measured by audiometric tests.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

This is not applicable in the traditional sense for this device. The "performance" of a hearing aid is inherently human-in-the-loop, as its function is to assist human hearing. However, the document does describe non-clinical tests such as "Magnetic Retention forces" and "Output Level Measurements" which are standalone assessments of the device's physical and acoustic properties without a human user. These non-clinical tests were performed independently of human perception.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth for the performance evaluation in the clinical field tests consisted of:

• Objective Audiometric Measurements: "Audiometric thresholds and speech perception thresholds" measured with both the predicate and subject devices. This is a form of objective functional assessment.
• Subjective User Reports: "The patients reported that they did not notice any subjective difference in hearing between the two devices." This is outcomes data based on patient perception.
• Technical Specifications/Measurements: For non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is adherence to predefined engineering specifications and comparison against the predicate's known performance for parameters like "Magnetic Retention forces" and "Output Level Measurements."

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document does not specify a training set size. This device is a hearing aid, not an AI/machine learning model that typically requires a large training dataset for model development. The development and validation likely followed traditional engineering design and testing principles, not machine learning paradigms involving distinct training and test sets in the AI context.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

As there's no mention of a training set in the context of an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the device's design and development would stem from established audiology principles, acoustic engineering standards, and the performance characteristics of the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device