647 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10037066)
1. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
Zeng FG; Galvin JJ
Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 10037066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV; Wang X
J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Dec; 104(6):3586-96. PubMed ID: 9857517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
Donaldson GS; Allen SL
Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 1999 Aug; 20(4):321-31. PubMed ID: 10466568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recognition of spectrally asynchronous speech by normal-hearing listeners and Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
Fu QJ; Galvin JJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Mar; 109(3):1166-72. PubMed ID: 11303930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Busby PA; Arora K
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Nov; 104(5):2570-7. PubMed ID: 9821336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor.
Fishman KE; Shannon RV; Slattery WH
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Oct; 40(5):1201-15. PubMed ID: 9328890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Computer-based auditory phoneme discrimination training improves speech recognition in noise in experienced adult cochlear implant listeners.
Schumann A; Serman M; Gefeller O; Hoppe U
Int J Audiol; 2015 Mar; 54(3):190-8. PubMed ID: 25549690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The identification of speech in noise by cochlear implant patients and normal-hearing listeners using 6-channel signal processors.
Dorman MF; Loizou PC; Fitzke J
Ear Hear; 1998 Dec; 19(6):481-4. PubMed ID: 9867296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance.
Zeng FG; Grant G; Niparko J; Galvin J; Shannon R; Opie J; Segel P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jan; 111(1 Pt 1):377-86. PubMed ID: 11831811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):339-48. PubMed ID: 12195176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.
Shannon RV; Cruz RJ; Galvin JJ
Audiol Neurootol; 2011; 16(2):113-23. PubMed ID: 20639631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Jan; 107(1):589-97. PubMed ID: 10641667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion.
Baskent D; Shannon RV
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2064-76. PubMed ID: 12703717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
