Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Johannesen, Peter T.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2024Comparison of Performance for Cochlear-Implant Listeners Using Audio Processing Strategies Based on Short-Time Fast Fourier Transform or Spectral Feature Extraction1citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Wijetillake, Aswin
1 / 1 shared
Lopez-Poveda, Enrique A.
1 / 1 shared
Segovia-Martínez, Manuel
1 / 1 shared
Zhang, Yue
1 / 11 shared
Hasan, Pierre-Yves
1 / 1 shared
Chiea, Rafael Attili
1 / 1 shared
Molaee-Ardekani, Behnam
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2024

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Wijetillake, Aswin
  • Lopez-Poveda, Enrique A.
  • Segovia-Martínez, Manuel
  • Zhang, Yue
  • Hasan, Pierre-Yves
  • Chiea, Rafael Attili
  • Molaee-Ardekani, Behnam
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparison of Performance for Cochlear-Implant Listeners Using Audio Processing Strategies Based on Short-Time Fast Fourier Transform or Spectral Feature Extraction

  • Wijetillake, Aswin
  • Johannesen, Peter T.
  • Lopez-Poveda, Enrique A.
  • Segovia-Martínez, Manuel
  • Zhang, Yue
  • Hasan, Pierre-Yves
  • Chiea, Rafael Attili
  • Molaee-Ardekani, Behnam
Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives:</jats:title><jats:p>We compared sound quality and performance for a conventional cochlear-implant (CI) audio processing strategy based on short-time fast-Fourier transform (Crystalis) and an experimental strategy based on spectral feature extraction (SFE). In the latter, the more salient spectral features (acoustic events) were extracted and mapped into the CI stimulation electrodes. We hypothesized that (1) SFE would be superior to Crystalis because it can encode acoustic spectral features without the constraints imposed by the short-time fast-Fourier transform bin width, and (2) the potential benefit of SFE would be greater for CI users who have less neural cross-channel interactions.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design:</jats:title><jats:p>To examine the first hypothesis, 6 users of Oticon Medical Digisonic SP CIs were tested in a double-blind design with the SFE and Crystalis strategies on various aspects: word recognition in quiet, speech-in-noise reception threshold (SRT), consonant discrimination in quiet, listening effort, melody contour identification (MCI), and subjective sound quality. Word recognition and SRTs were measured on the first and last day of testing (4 to 5 days apart) to assess potential learning and/or acclimatization effects. Other tests were run once between the first and last testing day. Listening effort was assessed by measuring pupil dilation. MCI involved identifying a five-tone contour among five possible contours. Sound quality was assessed subjectively using the multiple stimulus with hidden reference and anchor (MUSHRA) paradigm for sentences, music, and ambient sounds. To examine the second hypothesis, cross-channel interaction was assessed behaviorally using forward masking.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p>Word recognition was similar for the two strategies on the first day of testing and improved for both strategies on the last day of testing, with Crystalis improving significantly more. SRTs were worse with SFE than Crystalis on the first day of testing but became comparable on the last day of testing. Consonant discrimination scores were higher for Crystalis than for the SFE strategy. MCI scores and listening effort were not substantially different across strategies. Subjective sound quality scores were lower for the SFE than for the Crystalis strategy. The difference in performance with SFE and Crystalis was greater for CI users with higher channel interaction.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title><jats:p>CI-user performance was similar with the SFE and Crystalis strategies. Longer acclimatization times may be required to reveal the full potential of the SFE strategy.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • size-exclusion chromatography
  • chemical ionisation
  • supercritical fluid extraction