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

2013 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 1615-1624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oldooz Hazrati ◽  
Philipos C. Loizou
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Noise Suppression ◽  
Channel Selection

scholarly journals A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 3221-3232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas Kokkinakis ◽  
Oldooz Hazrati ◽  
Philipos C. Loizou
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Selection Criterion ◽  
Channel Selection

Use of S-Shaped Input-Output Functions for Noise Suppression in Cochlear Implants

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalyan Kasturi ◽  
Philipos C. Loizou
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Suppression ◽  
Input Output

scholarly journals A New Approach for Noise Suppression in Cochlear Implants: A Single-Channel Noise Reduction Algorithm1

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huali Zhou ◽  
Ningyuan Wang ◽  
Nengheng Zheng ◽  
Guangzheng Yu ◽  
Qinglin Meng
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Suppression ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Channel Noise ◽  
New Approach

Audiological Management and Performance of Adult Cochlear-Implant Patients

1992 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Mary W. Lowder
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
University Of Iowa ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Time Commitment ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The University

We review the signal-processing strategies of three of the most common cochlear implants in use today, the single-channel House, the multichannel Nucleus, and the Ineraid devices. The results of 65 postlinguistically-deafened patients tested at The University of Iowa are reviewed. The tests include everyday sound, accent, word and sentence recognition, as well as noise/voice differentiation. For all tests, patients with the Nucleus and Ineraid cochlear implants outperformed those with the House implant. In general, selection criteria should focus on comparing the performance of Patients who have already received an implant. Prelinguistically-deafened adults are typically not good cochlear-impact candidates. Cochlear-implant teams should be aware of the enormous time commitment for testing and rehabilitation of these patients, and be prepared to handle frequent implant breakdowns. Nevertheless, cochlear-implant patients have been helped significantly be these devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document