References
- Clark G. Cochlear Implants: Fundamentals and Applications. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.
- Razza S, Burdo S. An underestimated issue: unsuspected decrease of sound processor microphone sensitivity, technical, and clinical evaluation. Cochlear Implants Int. 2011;12:114–123.
- Schweitzer C. Mind the ports! The Effect of Severe Microphone Inlet Occlusion: port disasters, or how everyday activities can lead to severe microphone occlusion in a directional hearing aid. The Hearing Review. 2008;15:14–15.
- Dorman MF, Loizou PC. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear. 1998;19:162–166.
- Skinner MW, Arndt PL, Staller SJ. Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference. Ear Hear. 2002;23:2S–17S.
- Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res. 2017;356:93–103.
- Jeanvoine A, Gnansia D, Truy E, et al. Contribution of noise reduction algorithms: perception versus localization simulation in the case of Binaural Cochlear Implant (BCI) coding. Emerg Trends Comput Biol Bioinforma Syst Biol. 2015;307–324.
- Loizou PC, Dorman MF, Tu Z, et al. Recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of speak-type cochlear implant signal processors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000;185:67–68.
- Shannon RV, Fu Q-J, Galvin J. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Oto-Laryngol. 2004;124:50–54.
- Garnham C, O'Driscoll M, Ramsden And R, et al. Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear. 2002;23:540–552.
- Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, et al. Recognition of monosyllabic words by cochlear implant patients and by normal-hearing subjects listening to words processed through cochlear implant signal processing strategies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000;185:64–66.
- Fournier J-E. Speech audiometry: intelligibility tests and their applications to diagnosis, expertise and prosthetic correction of deafness. Maloine. 1951.
- Serra P-O. Effect of the maintenance of hearing aids on their efficiency [(in French) Audiology dissertation]. University of Montpellier, France; 2015.
- Seldran F, Gallego S, Thai-Van H, et al. Influence of coding strategies in electric-acoustic hearing: a simulation dedicated to EAS cochlear implant, in the presence of noise. Appl Acoust. 2014;76:300–309.
- Zatorre RJ, Belin P, Penhune VB. Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech. Trends Cogn Sci (Regul Ed). 2002;6:37–46.
- Kiefer J, Müller J, Pfennigdorff T, et al. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (MED-EL Combi-40) compared to the multipeak and spectral peak strategies (nucleus). ORL J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Its Relat Spec. 1996;58:127–135.
- Hu Y, Loizou PC. A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124:498–509.
- Kallel F, Laboissiere R, Ben Hamida A, et al. Influence of a shift in frequency distribution and analysis rate on phoneme intelligibility in noisy environments for simulated bilateral cochlear implants. Appl Acoust. 2013;74:10–17.
- Hazrati O, Loizou PC. Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133:1615–1624.
- Blamey P, Artieres F, Baskent D, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurotol. 2013;18:36–47.