2696 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19561509)
1. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. [Influence of mixing ratios of a FM-system on speech understanding of CI-users].
Hey M; Anft D; Hocke T; Scholz G; Hessel H; Begall K
Laryngorhinootologie; 2009 May; 88(5):315-21. PubMed ID: 19105120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study.
Wolfe J; Parkinson A; Schafer EC; Gilden J; Rehwinkel K; Mansanares J; Coughlan E; Wright J; Torres J; Gannaway S
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):553-60. PubMed ID: 22588233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of the benefit for cochlear implantees of two assistive directional microphone systems in an artificial diffuse noise situation.
van der Beek FB; Soede W; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):99-110. PubMed ID: 17204902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Impact of low-frequency hearing.
Büchner A; Schüssler M; Battmer RD; Stöver T; Lesinski-Schiedat A; Lenarz T
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():8-13. PubMed ID: 19390170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children.
Wolfe J; Schafer EC; John A; Hudson M
Otol Neurotol; 2011 Jun; 32(4):533-8. PubMed ID: 21436756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Initial clinical experience with a totally implantable cochlear implant research device.
Briggs RJ; Eder HC; Seligman PM; Cowan RS; Plant KL; Dalton J; Money DK; Patrick JF
Otol Neurotol; 2008 Feb; 29(2):114-9. PubMed ID: 17898671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Hearing rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: cochlear versus auditory brainstem implantation.
Vincenti V; Pasanisi E; Guida M; Di Trapani G; Sanna M
Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(4):273-80. PubMed ID: 18259080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Boyd PJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.
Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Labadie RF; Haynes DS
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):524-41. PubMed ID: 17609614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Speech perception comparisons using an implanted and an external microphone in existing cochlear implant users.
Jenkins HA; Uhler K
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jan; 33(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 22158017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
