143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16583905)
1. 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]
2. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
Stickney GS; Zeng FG; Litovsky R; Assmann P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms.
Whitmal NA; Poissant SF
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2556-69. PubMed ID: 19894835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Informational Masking Effects on Neural Encoding of Stimulus Onset and Acoustic Change.
Niemczak CE; Vander Werff KR
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):156-167. PubMed ID: 29782442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.
Helms Tillery K; Brown CA; Bacon SP
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):416-23. PubMed ID: 22280603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [On the effect of reverberation on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners].
Mühler R; Ziese M; Rostalski D; Verhey JL
HNO; 2014 Jan; 62(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 24270967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using channel-specific statistical models to detect reverberation in cochlear implant stimuli.
Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1112-20. PubMed ID: 23927111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Effects of noise suppression and envelope dynamic range compression on the intelligibility of vocoded sentences for a tonal language.
Chen F; Zheng D; Tsao Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Sep; 142(3):1157. PubMed ID: 28964090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Ideal time-frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
Koning R; Madhu N; Wouters J
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Jan; 62(1):331-41. PubMed ID: 25167542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Simulating the dual-peak excitation pattern produced by bipolar stimulation of a cochlear implant: effects on speech intelligibility.
Mesnildrey Q; Macherey O
Hear Res; 2015 Jan; 319():32-47. PubMed ID: 25449010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility.
George EL; Festen JM; Houtgast T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Aug; 124(2):1269-77. PubMed ID: 18681613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Release from informational masking in a monaural competing-speech task with vocoded copies of the maskers presented contralaterally.
Bernstein JG; Iyer N; Brungart DS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):702-13. PubMed ID: 25698005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
