Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 75

1.

The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients.

Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, Valente DL, McCreery RW, Diaz GR, Sanford T, Harpster R.

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012 Oct;55(5):1373-86. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358). Epub 2012 Mar 12.

PMID:
22411283
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
2.

Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.

Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Stecker M, Müller-Deile J, Maune S, Dillier N, Weber B, Hey M, Begall K, Lenarz T, Battmer RD, Böhm M, Steffens T, Strutz J, Linder T, Probst R, Allum J, Westhofen M, Doering W.

Otol Neurotol. 2004 Nov;25(6):958-68.

PMID:
15547426
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3.

Use of telehealth for research and clinical measures in cochlear implant recipients: a validation study.

Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL, Diaz GR, Sanford T, Harpster R, Valente DL.

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012 Aug;55(4):1112-27. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0237). Epub 2012 Jan 9.

PMID:
22232388
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
4.

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. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31825367a5.

PMID:
22588233
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5.

Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.

Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, Tobey EA, Peterson A, Gaggl W, Runge-Samuelson CL, Wackym PA.

Ear Hear. 2004 Aug;25(4):375-87.

PMID:
15292777
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6.

Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.

Peters BR, Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Lake J.

Otol Neurotol. 2007 Aug;28(5):649-57.

PMID:
17712290
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7.

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. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181acfb70.

PMID:
19561509
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8.

The influence of audiovisual ceiling performance on the relationship between reverberation and directional benefit: perception and prediction.

Wu YH, Bentler RA.

Ear Hear. 2012 Sep-Oct;33(5):604-14. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31825641e4.

PMID:
22677815
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9.

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 Jul-Aug;33(4):e13-23. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31824b9e21.

PMID:
22555182
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10.

Effect of preoperative residual hearing on speech perception after cochlear implantation.

Adunka OF, Buss E, Clark MS, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA.

Laryngoscope. 2008 Nov;118(11):2044-9. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181820900.

PMID:
18813141
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11.

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.

PMID:
17086085
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12.

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 Jul-Aug;20(7):409-21.

PMID:
19928395
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13.

Cochlear implant optimized noise reduction.

Mauger SJ, Arora K, Dawson PW.

J Neural Eng. 2012 Dec;9(6):065007. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/9/6/065007. Epub 2012 Nov 27.

PMID:
23187159
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14.

Using personal response systems to assess speech perception within the classroom: an approach to determine the efficacy of sound field amplification in primary school classrooms.

Vickers DA, Backus BC, Macdonald NK, Rostamzadeh NK, Mason NK, Pandya R, Marriage JE, Mahon MH.

Ear Hear. 2013 Jul-Aug;34(4):491-502. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827ad76f.

PMID:
23340455
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15.

Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.

Laske RD, Veraguth D, Dillier N, Binkert A, Holzmann D, Huber AM.

Otol Neurotol. 2009 Apr;30(3):313-8. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31819bd7e6.

PMID:
19318885
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16.

1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.

Wolfe J, Baker S, Caraway T, Kasulis H, Mears A, Smith J, Swim L, Wood M.

Otol Neurotol. 2007 Aug;28(5):589-96.

PMID:
17667768
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17.

Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference.

Skinner MW, Arndt PL, Staller SJ.

Ear Hear. 2002 Feb;23(1 Suppl):2S-17S.

PMID:
11883765
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18.

Speech recognition in quiet and noise in borderline cochlear implant candidates.

Alkaf FM, Firszt JB.

J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;18(10):872-82.

PMID:
18496996
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19.

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children: localization and hearing in noise benefits.

Vincent C, Bébéar JP, Radafy E, Vaneecloo FM, Ruzza I, Lautissier S, Bordure P.

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Jun;76(6):858-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.02.059. Epub 2012 Mar 20.

PMID:
22436413
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20.

HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.

Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D.

Audiol Neurootol. 2004 Jul-Aug;9(4):214-23.

PMID:
15205549
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk