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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23464031)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Gain-induced speech distortions and the absence of intelligibility benefit with existing noise-reduction algorithms.
    Kim G; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1581-96. PubMed ID: 21895096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.
    Bhattacharya A; Vandali A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2951-60. PubMed ID: 22087923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
    Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users.
    de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Merkus P; Theo Goverts S; Smits C
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):872-880. PubMed ID: 30261772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices.
    Kokkinakis K; Pak N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL47-53. PubMed ID: 24437856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
    Sagi E; Svirsky MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Pupillometry Reveals That Context Benefit in Speech Perception Can Be Disrupted by Later-Occurring Sounds, Especially in Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
    Winn MB; Moore AN
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518808962. PubMed ID: 30375282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):994-1008. PubMed ID: 22894220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.
    Croghan NBH; Duran SI; Smith ZM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Dec; 142(6):EL537. PubMed ID: 29289062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
    Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.
    Brochier T; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4097. PubMed ID: 28618807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.