Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 209

1.

Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants.

Hazrati O, Loizou PC.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Mar;133(3):1615-24. doi: 10.1121/1.4788999.

2.

Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.

Hazrati O, Sadjadi SO, Loizou PC, Hansen JH.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Nov;134(5):3759-65. doi: 10.1121/1.4823839.

3.

Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.

Mc Laughlin M, Reilly RB, Zeng FG.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Mar;133(3):1546-60. doi: 10.1121/1.4789940.

4.

The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Yoon YS, Li Y, Kang HY, Fu QJ.

Int J Audiol. 2011 Aug;50(8):554-65. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.580785. Epub 2011 Jun 23.

5.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.02.004. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

6.

Voice gender differences and separation of simultaneous talkers in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.

Visram AS, Kluk K, McKay CM.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Aug;132(2):EL135-41. doi: 10.1121/1.4737137.

PMID:
22894312
7.

Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants.

Hazrati O, Lee J, Loizou PC.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Mar;133(3):1607-14. doi: 10.1121/1.4789891.

8.

Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.

Bhargava P, Gaudrain E, Ba┼čkent D.

Hear Res. 2014 Mar;309:113-23. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.12.003. Epub 2013 Dec 22.

PMID:
24368138
9.

Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.

Ali H, Hazrati O, Tobey EA, Hansen JH.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Sep;136(3):EL242. doi: 10.1121/1.4893334.

10.

The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.

Hazrati O, Loizou PC.

Int J Audiol. 2012 Jun;51(6):437-43. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.658972. Epub 2012 Feb 22.

11.

Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.

Qazi OU, van Dijk B, Moonen M, Wouters J.

Hear Res. 2013 May;299:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.01.018. Epub 2013 Feb 8.

PMID:
23396271
12.

Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.

Oxenham AJ, Kreft HA.

Trends Hear. 2014 Oct 13;18. pii: 2331216514553783. doi: 10.1177/2331216514553783.

13.

Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Erenberg SR, Taylor J, Gantz BJ.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Nov;132(5):3406-17. doi: 10.1121/1.4757735.

14.

Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices.

Kokkinakis K, Loizou PC.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 May;127(5):3136-44. doi: 10.1121/1.3372727.

15.

The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.

Koning R, Wouters J.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Oct;132(4):2569-81. doi: 10.1121/1.4748965.

PMID:
23039450
16.

Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).

Jansen S, Koning R, Wouters J, van Wieringen A.

Int J Audiol. 2014 Jan;53(1):55-9. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.839886. Epub 2013 Oct 23.

PMID:
24152309
17.

Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.

Hu Y, Kokkinakis K.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Jan;135(1):EL22-8. doi: 10.1121/1.4834455.

18.

Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.

Goldsworthy RL, Delhorne LA, Braida LD, Reed CM.

Trends Amplif. 2013 Mar;17(1):27-44. doi: 10.1177/1084713813477244. Epub 2013 Feb 21.

19.

Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.

Dorman MF, Cook S, Spahr A, Zhang T, Loiselle L, Schramm D, Whittingham J, Gifford R.

Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:107-11. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.010. Epub 2014 Oct 5.

20.

Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.

Stilp CE, Goupell MJ, Kluender KR.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Feb;133(2):EL136-41. doi: 10.1121/1.4776773.

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk