226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28722645)
1. Verification of a Proposed Clinical Electroacoustic Test Protocol for Personal Digital Modulation Receivers Coupled to Cochlear Implant Sound Processors.
Nair EL; Sousa R; Wannagot S
J Am Acad Audiol; 2017; 28(7):625-635. PubMed ID: 28722645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Verification Protocol for Signal Transparency Using the Cochlear Mini-Microphone 2+ and Digital Modulation Transmitter and Receiver with Cochlear Implants.
Sousa R; Nair E; Wannagot S
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Mar; 30(3):198-207. PubMed ID: 30461401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A proposed electroacoustic test protocol for personal FM receivers coupled to cochlear implant sound processors.
Schafer EC; Musgrave E; Momin S; Sandrock C; Romine D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):941-54. PubMed ID: 24384080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Electromagnetic versus electrical coupling of personal frequency modulation (FM) receivers to cochlear implant sound processors.
Schafer EC; Romine D; Musgrave E; Momin S; Huynh C
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):927-40. PubMed ID: 24384079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Electroacoustic verification of frequency modulation systems in cochlear implant users.
Fidêncio VLD; Jacob RTS; Tanamati LF; Bucuvic ÉC; Moret ALM
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol; 2019; 85(2):162-169. PubMed ID: 29339025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM.
Wolfe J; Schafer EC; Heldner B; Mülder H; Ward E; Vincent B
J Am Acad Audiol; 2009; 20(7):409-21. PubMed ID: 19928395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Frequency Modulation System and Bone Conduction Hearing Aid: Electroacoustic Verification.
Paccola ECM; Costa Filho OA; Jacob RTS
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2021 Oct; 25(4):e483-e489. PubMed ID: 34737817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Optimizing the benefit of sound processors coupled to personal FM systems.
Wolfe J; Schafer EC
J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Sep; 19(8):585-94. PubMed ID: 19323350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system.
Wolfe J; Morais M; Schafer E; Mills E; Mülder HE; Goldbeck F; Marquis F; John A; Hudson M; Peters BR; Lianos L
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Sep; 24(8):714-24. PubMed ID: 24131607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Holden LK; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Dwyer NY; Stein AL; Litvak LM
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):990-1000. PubMed ID: 30418283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Electroacoustic evaluation of frequency-modulated receivers interfaced with personal hearing aids.
Schafer EC; Thibodeau LM; Whalen HS; Overson GJ
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch; 2007 Oct; 38(4):315-26. PubMed ID: 17890512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Adaptive, Digital Remote Microphone Technology and a Speech Enhancement Sound Processing Algorithm.
Wolfe J; Morais M; Schafer E; Agrawal S; Koch D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 May; 26(5):502-508. PubMed ID: 26055839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.
Baudhuin J; Cadieux J; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Maxson JL
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):302-12. PubMed ID: 22533974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Conversion of adult Nucleus® 5 cochlear implant users to the Nucleus® 6 system.
De Ceulaer G; Swinnen F; Pascoal D; Philips B; Killian M; James C; Govaerts PJ; Dhooge I
Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Jul; 16(4):222-32. PubMed ID: 25284643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fitting and verification of frequency modulation systems on children with normal hearing.
Schafer EC; Bryant D; Sanders K; Baldus N; Algier K; Lewis A; Traber J; Layden P; Amin A
J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Jun; 25(6):529-40. PubMed ID: 25313543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of input processing and type of personal frequency modulation system on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
Wolfe J; Schafer E; Parkinson A; John A; Hudson M; Wheeler J; Mucci A
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 22941405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The use of frequency compression by cochlear implant recipients with postoperative acoustic hearing.
McDermott H; Henshall K
J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Jun; 21(6):380-9. PubMed ID: 20701835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
