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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23187159)

  • 1. Cochlear implant optimized noise reduction.
    Mauger SJ; Arora K; Dawson PW
    J Neural Eng; 2012 Dec; 9(6):065007. PubMed ID: 23187159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Perceptually optimized gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction.
    Mauger SJ; Dawson PW; Hersbach AA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):327-36. PubMed ID: 22280595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Enhanced hearing in noise for cochlear implant recipients: clinical trial results for a commercially available speech-enhancement strategy.
    Koch DB; Quick A; Osberger MJ; Saoji A; Litvak L
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Jun; 35(5):803-9. PubMed ID: 24691504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources.
    Ricketts TA; Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):763-73. PubMed ID: 17086085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Use of S-shaped input-output functions for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
    Kasturi K; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):402-11. PubMed ID: 17485989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of Noise Reduction Algorithm ClearVoice in Cochlear Implant Processing: Effects on Noise Tolerance and Speech Intelligibility in Noise in Relation to Spectral Resolution.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):357-67. PubMed ID: 25479412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sparse Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Strategy for Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Lutman ME; Ewert SD; Li G; Bleeck S
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech understanding performance of cochlear implant subjects using time-frequency masking-based noise reduction.
    Qazi Ou; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2012 May; 59(5):1364-73. PubMed ID: 22345522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.
    Cullington HE; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users.
    Soshi T; Hisanaga S; Kodama N; Kanekama Y; Samejima Y; Yumoto E; Sekiyama K
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():110-21. PubMed ID: 25158303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.