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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22207823)

  • 1. A Dual-Microphone Speech Enhancement Algorithm Based on the Coherence Function.
    Yousefian N; Loizou PC
    IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process; 2011 Jul; 20(2):599-609. PubMed ID: 22207823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Research of front-end speech enhancement and beamforming algorithm based on dual microphoneforcochlear implant].
    Chen Y; Chen Y
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Jun; 36(3):468-477. PubMed ID: 31232551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Better speech perception in noise with an assistive multimicrophone array for hearing AIDS.
    Luts H; Maj JB; Soede W; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):411-20. PubMed ID: 15599189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients.
    van Hoesel RJ; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Apr; 97(4):2498-503. PubMed ID: 7714267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Noise reduction results of an adaptive filtering technique for dual-microphone behind-the-ear hearing aids.
    Maj JB; Wouters J; Moonen M
    Ear Hear; 2004 Jun; 25(3):215-29. PubMed ID: 15179113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Evaluation of speech reception threshold in noise in young Cochlear™ Nucleus
    Razza S; Zaccone M; Meli A; Cristofari E
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2017 Dec; 103():71-75. PubMed ID: 29224769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies I: Instrumental Evaluation.
    Baumgärtel RM; Krawczyk-Becker M; Marquardt D; Völker C; Hu H; Herzke T; Coleman G; Adiloğlu K; Ernst SM; Gerkmann T; Doclo S; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Perceived sound quality of different signal processing algorithms by cochlear implant listeners in real-world acoustic environments.
    Chung K
    J Commun Disord; 2020; 83():105973. PubMed ID: 31901876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Effects of Hearing Aid Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Processing on Listening Effort in Older Adults with Hearing Loss.
    Desjardins JL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Jan; 27(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 26809324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. An Evaluation of Hearing Aid Beamforming Microphone Arrays in a Noisy Laboratory Setting.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):131-144. PubMed ID: 30461406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Litovsky RY; Parkinson A; Arcaroli J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Aug; 30(4):419-31. PubMed ID: 19455039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Microphone directionality, pre-emphasis filter, and wind noise in cochlear implants.
    Chung K; McKibben N
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Oct; 22(9):586-600. PubMed ID: 22192604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.