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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16158665)

  • 21. Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users.
    Drennan WR; Anderson ES; Won JH; Rubinstein JT
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e92-8. PubMed ID: 24552679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
    Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ
    J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effects of electrode deactivation on speech recognition in multichannel cochlear implant recipients.
    Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Zwolan TA; Pfingst BE
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2017 Nov; 18(6):324-334. PubMed ID: 28793847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Spectrotemporal Modulation Discrimination in Infants With Normal Hearing.
    Noble AR; Resnick J; Broncheau M; Klotz S; Rubinstein JT; Werner LA; Horn DL
    Ear Hear; 2023 Jan-Feb 01; 44(1):109-117. PubMed ID: 36218270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution.
    Jin SH; Nelson PB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 May; 119(5 Pt 1):3097-108. PubMed ID: 16708964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Psychoacoustic performance and music and speech perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.
    Jung KH; Won JH; Drennan WR; Jameyson E; Miyasaki G; Norton SJ; Rubinstein JT
    Audiol Neurootol; 2012; 17(3):189-97. PubMed ID: 22398954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity.
    Donaldson GS; Dawson PK; Borden LZ
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):238-50. PubMed ID: 21084987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Reducing Simulated Channel Interaction Reveals Differences in Phoneme Identification Between Children and Adults With Normal Hearing.
    Jahn KN; DiNino M; Arenberg JG
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):295-311. PubMed ID: 29927780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?
    Moberly AC; Vasil KJ; Wucinich TL; Safdar N; Boyce L; Roup C; Holt RF; Adunka OF; Castellanos I; Shafiro V; Houston DM; Pisoni DB
    Laryngoscope; 2018 Nov; 128 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):. PubMed ID: 30325518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cochlear implant users' spectral ripple resolution.
    Jeon EK; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Henry BA; Gantz BJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Oct; 138(4):2350-8. PubMed ID: 26520316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD; Schaefer AB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Jan; 85(1):355-64. PubMed ID: 2921418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
    Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners.
    Dubno JR; Schaefer AB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2110-21. PubMed ID: 1597602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Perception of spectral contrast by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Dreisbach LE; Leek MR; Lentz JJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Aug; 48(4):910-21. PubMed ID: 16378482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Using speech sounds to test functional spectral resolution in listeners with cochlear implants.
    Winn MB; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1430-42. PubMed ID: 25786954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech perception with F0mod, a cochlear implant pitch coding strategy.
    Francart T; Osses A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jun; 54(6):424-32. PubMed ID: 25697275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. The internal representation of spectral contrast in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Summers V; Leek MR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Jun; 95(6):3518-28. PubMed ID: 8046143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.