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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16266181)

  • 1. Phonetic identification in quiet and in noise by listeners with cochlear implants.
    Munson B; Nelson PB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Oct; 118(4):2607-17. PubMed ID: 16266181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Neural Correlates of Phonetic Learning in Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Miller S; Zhang Y; Nelson P
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):514-28. PubMed ID: 26928002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.
    Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Vidal C; Behrens A; Henry BA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Apr; 115(4):1729-35. PubMed ID: 15101651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Speech perception of sine-wave signals by children with cochlear implants.
    Nittrouer S; Kuess J; Lowenstein JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2811-22. PubMed ID: 25994709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users.
    Teoh SW; Neuburger HS; Svirsky MA
    Audiol Neurootol; 2003; 8(5):269-85. PubMed ID: 12904682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants for continua varying in formant transition duration.
    Blankenship KG; Ohde RN; Won JH; Hedrick M
    Int J Speech Lang Pathol; 2018 Apr; 20(2):238-246. PubMed ID: 28000516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Peters BR; Litovsky R; Parkinson A; Lake J
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):649-57. PubMed ID: 17712290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.