OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implant (CI) users continue to struggle understanding speech in noisy environments with current clinical devices. We have previously shown that this outcome can be improved by using binaural sound processors inspired by the medial olivocochlear (MOC) reflex, which involve dynamic (contralaterally controlled) rather than fixed compressive acoustic-to-electric maps. The present study aimed at investigating the potential additional benefits of using more realistic implementations of MOC processing. DESIGN: Eight users of bilateral CIs and two users of unilateral CIs participated in the study. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences in competition with steady state noise were measured in unilateral and bilateral listening modes. Stimuli were processed through two independently functioning sound processors (one per ear) with fixed compression, the current clinical standard (STD); the originally proposed MOC strategy with fast contralateral control of compression (MOC1); a MOC strategy with slower control of compression (MOC2); and a slower MOC strategy with comparatively greater contralateral inhibition in the lower-frequency than in the higher-frequency channels (MOC3). Performance with the four strategies was compared for multiple simulated spatial configurations of the speech and noise sources. Based on a previously published technical evaluation of these strategies, we hypothesized that SRTs would be overall better (lower) with the MOC3 strategy than with any of the other tested strategies. In addition, we hypothesized that the MOC3 strategy would be advantageous over the STD strategy in listening conditions and spatial configurations where the MOC1 strategy was not. RESULTS: In unilateral listening and when the implant ear had the worse acoustic signal-to-noise ratio, the mean SRT was 4 dB worse for the MOC1 than for the STD strategy (as expected), but it became equal or better for the MOC2 or MOC3 strategies than for the STD strategy. In bilateral listening, mean SRTs were 1.6 dB better for the MOC3 strategy than for the STD strategy across all spatial configurations tested, including a condition with speech and noise sources colocated at front where the MOC1 strategy was slightly disadvantageous relative to the STD strategy. All strategies produced significantly better SRTs for spatially separated than for colocated speech and noise sources. A statistically significant binaural advantage (i.e., better mean SRTs across spatial configurations and participants in bilateral than in unilateral listening) was found for the MOC2 and MOC3 strategies but not for the STD or MOC1 strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, performance was best with the MOC3 strategy, which maintained the benefits of the originally proposed MOC1 strategy over the STD strategy for spatially separated speech and noise sources and extended those benefits to additional spatial configurations. In addition, the MOC3 strategy provided a significant binaural advantage, which did not occur with the STD or the original MOC1 strategies.