26 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1619125)
1. Dynamic specification of vowels in Hijazi Arabic.
Almurashi W; Al-Tamimi J; Khattab G
Phonetica; 2024 Apr; 81(2):185-220. PubMed ID: 38358292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Consonant and vowel confusions in well-performing adult cochlear implant users, measured with a nonsense syllable repetition test.
Rødvik AK; Torkildsen JVK; Wie OB; Tvete O; Skaug I; Silvola JT
Int J Audiol; 2024 Apr; 63(4):260-268. PubMed ID: 36853200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reaction time for correct identification of vowels in consonant-vowel syllables and of vowel segments.
Hedrick M; Thornton K
JASA Express Lett; 2024 Jan; 4(1):. PubMed ID: 38214609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
Sagi E; Svirsky MA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Discriminability and Perceptual Saliency of Temporal and Spectral Cues for Final Fricative Consonant Voicing in Simulated Cochlear-Implant and Bimodal Hearing.
Kong YY; Winn MB; Poellmann K; Donaldson GS
Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27317666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: Contributions of duration cues and dynamic spectral cues.
Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Johnson LB; Oh SH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jul; 138(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 26233007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing.
Winn MB; Chatterjee M; Idsardi WJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1465-79. PubMed ID: 22352517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A mathematical model of vowel identification by users of cochlear implants.
Sagi E; Meyer TA; Kaiser AR; Teoh SW; Svirsky MA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Feb; 127(2):1069-83. PubMed ID: 20136228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Perception of silent-center syllables by native and non-native English speakers.
Rogers CL; Lopez AS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Aug; 124(2):1278-93. PubMed ID: 18681614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Place-pitch and vowel-pitch comparisons in cochlear implant patients using the Melbourne-Nucleus cochlear implant.
Pauka CK
J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 1989; 19():1-31. PubMed ID: 2693565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The use of static and dynamic vowel cues by multichannel cochlear implant users.
Kirk KI; Tye-Murray N; Hurtig RR
J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Jun; 91(6):3487-98. PubMed ID: 1619125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Vowel perception strategies of normal-hearing subjects and patients using Nucleus multichannel and 3M/House cochlear implants.
Tartter VC; Hellman SA; Chute PM
J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Sep; 92(3):1269-83. PubMed ID: 1401515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
