These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17672655)

  • 21. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System.
    Spriet A; Van Deun L; Eftaxiadis K; Laneau J; Moonen M; van Dijk B; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 17204899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans Affairs cochlear implant recipients.
    Cohen NL; Waltzman SB; Roland JT; Bromberg B; Cambron N; Gibbs L; Parkinson W; Snead C
    Am J Otol; 1997 Jul; 18(4):462-5. PubMed ID: 9233486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users.
    Hochmair-Desoyer I; Schulz E; Moser L; Schmidt M
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S83. PubMed ID: 9391610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC; Pogue J; Milrany T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(7):501-9. PubMed ID: 22992257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of preoperative residual hearing on speech perception after cochlear implantation.
    Adunka OF; Buss E; Clark MS; Pillsbury HC; Buchman CA
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Nov; 118(11):2044-9. PubMed ID: 18813141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of word-, sentence-, and phoneme-based training strategies in improving the perception of spectrally distorted speech.
    Stacey PC; Summerfield AQ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):526-38. PubMed ID: 18367694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Evaluation of companding-based spectral enhancement using simulated cochlear-implant processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Simonson AM; Turicchia L; Sarpeshkar R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1709-16. PubMed ID: 17407907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. New cochlear implant coding strategy for tonal language speakers.
    Wong LL; Vandali AE; Ciocca V; Luk B; Ip VW; Murray B; Yu HC; Chung I
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Jun; 47(6):337-47. PubMed ID: 18569106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Noise signal reduction in cochlear implant speech processors].
    Müller-Deile J
    HNO; 1995 Sep; 43(9):545-51. PubMed ID: 7591867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Tone discrimination and speech perception benefit in Mandarin-speaking children fit with HiRes fidelity 120 sound processing.
    Chang YT; Yang HM; Lin YH; Liu SH; Wu JL
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Sep; 30(6):750-7. PubMed ID: 19704359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience.
    Whitmal NA; Poissant SF; Freyman RL; Helfer KS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2376-88. PubMed ID: 17902872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Perception of speech by prelingual pre-adolescent and adolescent cochlear implant users.
    Shpak T; Koren L; Tzach N; Most T; Luntz M
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Nov; 48(11):775-83. PubMed ID: 19951145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor.
    Loizou PC; Stickney G; Mishra L; Assmann P
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12598809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
    Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of a non-linear spectral subtraction noise suppression scheme in cochlear implant users.
    Verschuur C; Lutman M; Wahat NH
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2006 Dec; 7(4):193-6. PubMed ID: 18792387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences.
    Stickney GS; Assmann PF; Chang J; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1069-78. PubMed ID: 17672654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Computer-based auditory phoneme discrimination training improves speech recognition in noise in experienced adult cochlear implant listeners.
    Schumann A; Serman M; Gefeller O; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Mar; 54(3):190-8. PubMed ID: 25549690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.