These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
5. Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. Poissant SF; Whitmal NA; Freyman RL J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1606-15. PubMed ID: 16583905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. Qin MK; Oxenham AJ J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul; 114(1):446-54. PubMed ID: 12880055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using Zebra-speech to study sequential and simultaneous speech segregation in a cochlear-implant simulation. Gaudrain E; Carlyon RP J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):502-18. PubMed ID: 23297922 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech. Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Arbogast TL; Mason CR; Kidd G J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2169-80. PubMed ID: 15898658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release. Croghan NBH; Smith ZM Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. Cullington HE; Zeng FG J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm. Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing. Nelson DA; Donaldson GS J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Nelson PB; Jin SH; Carney AE; Nelson DA J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Feb; 113(2):961-8. PubMed ID: 12597189 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients. Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids. Davidson LS Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pure-tone auditory stream segregation and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients. Hong RS; Turner CW J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Jul; 120(1):360-74. PubMed ID: 16875232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]