271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21117762)
1. Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices.
Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3136-44. PubMed ID: 21117762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor.
Mauger SJ; Jones M; Nel E; Del Dot J
Int J Audiol; 2017 Apr; 56(4):267-276. PubMed ID: 28067077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Single and multiple microphone noise reduction strategies in cochlear implants.
Kokkinakis K; Azimi B; Hu Y; Friedland DR
Trends Amplif; 2012 Jun; 16(2):102-16. PubMed ID: 22923425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The use of cochlear's SCAN and wireless microphones to improve speech understanding in noise with the Nucleus6® CP900 processor.
De Ceulaer G; Pascoal D; Vanpoucke F; Govaerts PJ
Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):837-843. PubMed ID: 28695749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Two-microphone spatial filtering improves speech reception for cochlear-implant users in reverberant conditions with multiple noise sources.
Goldsworthy RL
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25330772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.
Yoon YS; Li Y; Kang HY; Fu QJ
Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):554-65. PubMed ID: 21696329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improving Cochlear Implant Performance in the Wind Through Spectral Masking Release: A Multi-microphone and Multichannel Strategy.
Chung K
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(2):420-432. PubMed ID: 31425361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A beamformer post-filter for cochlear implant noise reduction.
Hersbach AA; Grayden DB; Fallon JB; McDermott HJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2412-20. PubMed ID: 23556606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.
Hazrati O; Sadjadi SO; Loizou PC; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):3759-65. PubMed ID: 24180786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.
Laszig R; Aschendorff A; Stecker M; Müller-Deile J; Maune S; Dillier N; Weber B; Hey M; Begall K; Lenarz T; Battmer RD; Böhm M; Steffens T; Strutz J; Linder T; Probst R; Allum J; Westhofen M; Doering W
Otol Neurotol; 2004 Nov; 25(6):958-68. PubMed ID: 15547426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals' binaural benefits for speech perception in noise.
Aronoff JM; Freed DJ; Fisher LM; Pal I; Soli SD
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):468-84. PubMed ID: 21412155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies II: Speech Intelligibility of Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.
Baumgärtel RM; Hu H; Krawczyk-Becker M; Marquardt D; Herzke T; Coleman G; Adiloğlu K; Bomke K; Plotz K; Gerkmann T; Doclo S; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Dietz M
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users.
Sladen DP; Nie Y; Berg K
Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 May; 19(3):119-130. PubMed ID: 29457564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1615-24. PubMed ID: 23464031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
