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.
129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26427637)
21. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. 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]
26. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings. Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Effect of Microphone Location and Beamforming Technology on Speech Recognition in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients. Holder JT; Taylor AL; Sunderhaus LW; Gifford RH J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jul; 31(7):506-512. PubMed ID: 32119817 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Impact of Microphone Configuration on Speech Perception of Cochlear Implant Users in Traffic Noise. Weissgerber T; Bandeira M; Brendel M; Stöver T; Baumann U Otol Neurotol; 2019 Mar; 40(3):e198-e205. PubMed ID: 30741896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network. De Ceulaer G; Bestel J; Mülder HE; Goldbeck F; de Varebeke SP; Govaerts PJ Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2016 May; 273(5):1107-14. PubMed ID: 25983309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A Binaural Cochlear Implant Sound Coding Strategy Inspired by the Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Reflex. Lopez-Poveda EA; Eustaquio-Martín A; Stohl JS; Wolford RD; Schatzer R; Wilson BS Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):e138-48. PubMed ID: 26862711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Determining cochlear implant users' true noise tolerance: use of speech reception threshold in noise testing. Poissant SF; Bero EM; Busekroos L; Shao W Otol Neurotol; 2014 Mar; 35(3):414-20. PubMed ID: 24518402 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Intelligibility in speech maskers with a binaural cochlear implant sound coding strategy inspired by the contralateral medial olivocochlear reflex. Lopez-Poveda EA; Eustaquio-Martín A; Stohl JS; Wolford RD; Schatzer R; Gorospe JM; Ruiz SSC; Benito F; Wilson BS Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():134-137. PubMed ID: 28188882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study. Müller-Deile J; Kiefer J; Wyss J; Nicolai J; Battmer R Cochlear Implants Int; 2008 Mar; 9(1):8-26. PubMed ID: 18300224 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing. Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The addition of a contralateral microphone for unilateral cochlear implant users: not an alternative for bilateral cochlear implantation. van Loon MC; Goverts ST; Merkus P; Hensen EF; Smits C Otol Neurotol; 2014 Oct; 35(9):e233-9. PubMed ID: 25226266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]