418 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15205549)
21. Benefits of the HiRes 120 coding strategy combined with the Harmony processor in an adult European multicentre study.
Büchner A; Lenarz T; Boermans PP; Frijns JH; Mancini P; Filipo R; Fielden C; Cooper H; Eklöf M; Freijd A; Lombaard S; Meerton L; Pickerill M; Vanat Z; Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Kienast B; Boyle P; Arnold L; Meyer B; Sterkers O; Müller-Deile J; Ambrosch P; Helbig S; Frachet B; Gallego S; Truy E; Jeffs E; Morant A; Marco J
Acta Otolaryngol; 2012 Feb; 132(2):179-87. PubMed ID: 22074015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.
Koch DB; Downing M; Osberger MJ; Litvak L
Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):38S-41S. PubMed ID: 17496643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users.
Hersbach AA; Arora K; Mauger SJ; Dawson PW
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):e13-23. PubMed ID: 22555182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
Peters BR; Litovsky R; Parkinson A; Lake J
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):649-57. PubMed ID: 17712290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Clinical Outcomes of the Cochlear™ Nucleus(®) 5 Cochlear Implant System and SmartSound™ 2 Signal Processing.
Runge CL; Henion K; Tarima S; Beiter A; Zwolan TA
J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Jun; 27(6):425-440. PubMed ID: 27310402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.
Firszt JB; Holden LK; Reeder RM; Skinner MW
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Feb; 30(2):146-52. PubMed ID: 19106769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant.
Zwolan TA; Kileny PR; Smith S; Waltzman S; Chute P; Domico E; Firszt J; Hodges A; Mills D; Whearty M; Osberger MJ; Fisher L
Otol Neurotol; 2005 May; 26(3):455-65. PubMed ID: 15891649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The role of a new contralateral routing of signal microphone in established unilateral cochlear implant recipients.
Grewal AS; Kuthubutheen J; Smilsky K; Nedzelski JM; Chen JM; Friesen L; Lin VY
Laryngoscope; 2015 Jan; 125(1):197-202. PubMed ID: 25224587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity.
Donaldson GS; Dawson PK; Borden LZ
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):238-50. PubMed ID: 21084987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems.
Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Roland JT
Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):435-41. PubMed ID: 10431883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
Donaldson GS; Allen SL
Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Longitudinal outcomes of cochlear implantation and bimodal hearing in a large group of adults: A multicenter clinical study.
Kelsall D; Lupo J; Biever A
Am J Otolaryngol; 2021; 42(1):102773. PubMed ID: 33161258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Long-term speech perception in elderly cochlear implant users.
Dillon MT; Buss E; Adunka MC; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2013 Mar; 139(3):279-83. PubMed ID: 23657352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Implication of central asymmetry in speech processing on selecting the ear for cochlear implantation.
Morris LG; Mallur PS; Roland JT; Waltzman SB; Lalwani AK
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Jan; 28(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 17195742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness: speech in noise and directional hearing effects with bone-anchored hearing and contralateral routing of signal amplification.
Lin LM; Bowditch S; Anderson MJ; May B; Cox KM; Niparko JK
Otol Neurotol; 2006 Feb; 27(2):172-82. PubMed ID: 16436986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
Boeheim K; Pok SM; Schloegel M; Filzmoser P
Otol Neurotol; 2010 Apr; 31(3):424-9. PubMed ID: 20042907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
