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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17407907)

  • 1. Evaluation of companding-based spectral enhancement using simulated cochlear-implant processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Simonson AM; Turicchia L; Sarpeshkar R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1709-16. PubMed ID: 17407907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise.
    Bhattacharya A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1079-89. PubMed ID: 17672655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Top-Down Processes in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Hearing: The Effect of Linguistic Context on Bimodal Benefit for Temporally Interrupted Speech.
    Oh SH; Donaldson GS; Kong YY
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 27007220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps.
    Stafford RC; Stafford JW; Wells JD; Loizou PC; Keller MD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):262-70. PubMed ID: 24322978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
    Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
    [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. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.
    Fu QJ; Nogaki G
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Mar; 6(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 15735937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Application of Noise Reduction Algorithm ClearVoice in Cochlear Implant Processing: Effects on Noise Tolerance and Speech Intelligibility in Noise in Relation to Spectral Resolution.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):357-67. PubMed ID: 25479412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sparse Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Strategy for Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Lutman ME; Ewert SD; Li G; Bleeck S
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users.
    Hersbach AA; Arora K; Mauger SJ; Dawson PW
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):e13-23. PubMed ID: 22555182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels.
    Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Nov; 120(5 Pt 1):2908-25. PubMed ID: 17139748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. An Evaluation of Output Signal to Noise Ratio as a Predictor of Cochlear Implant Speech Intelligibility.
    Watkins GD; Swanson BA; Suaning GJ
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(5):958-968. PubMed ID: 29474218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.