585 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15376674)
41. Development of Masked Speech Detection Thresholds in 2- to 15-year-old Children: Speech-Shaped Noise and Two-Talker Speech Maskers.
Bonino AY; Ramsey ME; Pancoast ES; Vance EA
Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1712-1726. PubMed ID: 33928913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Amplitude fluctuations in a masker influence lexical segmentation in cochlear implant users.
Perry TT; Kwon BJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Apr; 137(4):2070-9. PubMed ID: 25920857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. 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]
45. Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing.
Ihlefeld A; Shinn-Cunningham BG; Carlyon RP
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1315-24. PubMed ID: 22352505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Masked Sentence Recognition in Children, Young Adults, and Older Adults: Age-Dependent Effects of Semantic Context and Masker Type.
Buss E; Hodge SE; Calandruccio L; Leibold LJ; Grose JH
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(5):1117-1126. PubMed ID: 30601213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Impact of a moving noise masker on speech perception in cochlear implant users.
Weissgerber T; Rader T; Baumann U
PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0126133. PubMed ID: 25970594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Turn an Ear to Hear: How Hearing-Impaired Listeners Can Exploit Head Orientation to Enhance Their Speech Intelligibility in Noisy Social Settings.
Grange JA; Culling JF; Bardsley B; Mackinney LI; Hughes SE; Backhouse SS
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518802701. PubMed ID: 30334495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Effect of interaural electrode insertion depth difference and independent band selection on sentence recognition in noise and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening.
Fathima H; Bhat JS; Pitchaimuthu AN
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2023 Jul; 280(7):3209-3217. PubMed ID: 36695909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects with an energetic or informational masker in bilateral and bimodal CI users.
Pyschny V; Landwehr M; Hahn M; Lang-Roth R; Walger M; Meister H
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 57(5):1942-60. PubMed ID: 24825129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. The effect of nearby maskers on speech intelligibility in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
Westermann A; Buchholz JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2214. PubMed ID: 28372143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.
Qin MK; Oxenham AJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Apr; 119(4):2417-26. PubMed ID: 16642854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. The influence of informational masking in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
Westermann A; Buchholz JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Aug; 138(2):584-93. PubMed ID: 26328677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech.
Arbogast TL; Mason CR; Kidd G
J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Nov; 112(5 Pt 1):2086-98. PubMed ID: 12430820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Enhancing listener strategies using a payoff matrix in speech-on-speech masking experiments.
Thompson ER; Iyer N; Simpson BD; Wakefield GH; Kieras DE; Brungart DS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):1297-304. PubMed ID: 26428768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Speech Perception with Spectrally Non-overlapping Maskers as Measure of Spectral Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users.
O'Neill ER; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Apr; 20(2):151-167. PubMed ID: 30456730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Effect of speaking rate on recognition of synthetic and natural speech by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
Ji C; Galvin JJ; Xu A; Fu QJ
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 23238527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Contribution of Stimulus Variability to Word Recognition in Noise Versus Two-Talker Speech for School-Age Children and Adults.
Buss E; Calandruccio L; Oleson J; Leibold LJ
Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):313-322. PubMed ID: 32881723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Transfer of auditory perceptual learning with spectrally reduced speech to speech and nonspeech tasks: implications for cochlear implants.
Loebach JL; Pisoni DB; Svirsky MA
Ear Hear; 2009 Dec; 30(6):662-74. PubMed ID: 19773659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
