586 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30261771)
1. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Dingemanse JG; Homans NC; Goedegebure A
Int J Audiol; 2017 Sep; 56(9):643-649. PubMed ID: 28395552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users.
Sladen DP; Nie Y; Berg K
Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 May; 19(3):119-130. PubMed ID: 29457564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.
Zhou X; Li H; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Yuan W
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S41-S48. PubMed ID: 27367147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
Dieudonné B; Francart T
Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Speech Recognition in Noise in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Digital Remote Wireless Microphone Technology.
Wesarg T; Arndt S; Wiebe K; Schmid F; Huber A; Mülder HE; Laszig R; Aschendorff A; Speck I
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):607-618. PubMed ID: 30430986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Two-microphone spatial filtering improves speech reception for cochlear-implant users in reverberant conditions with multiple noise sources.
Goldsworthy RL
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25330772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices.
Bosman AJ; Mylanus EA; Hol MK; Snik AF
Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 55(7):419-24. PubMed ID: 27176657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid.
Neuman AC; Waltzman SB; Shapiro WH; Neukam JD; Zeman AM; Svirsky MA
Trends Hear; 2017 Jan; 21():2331216517699530. PubMed ID: 28351216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Evaluation of a Remote Microphone System with Tri-Microphone Beamformer.
Wolfe J; Duke M; Schafer E; Jones C; Rakita L; Battles J
J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jan; 31(1):50-60. PubMed ID: 31429403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lexical tone recognition in noise in normal-hearing children and prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.
Mao Y; Xu L
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S23-S30. PubMed ID: 27564095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
