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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17946580)

  • 21. Spectral density affects the intelligibility of tone-vocoded speech: Implications for cochlear implant simulations.
    Rosen S; Zhang Y; Speers K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):EL318-23. PubMed ID: 26428833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
    [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. Effect of Noise Reduction Gain Errors on Simulated Cochlear Implant Speech Intelligibility.
    Kressner AA; May T; Dau T
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519825930. PubMed ID: 30755108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners.
    Green T; Katiri S; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jun; 121(6):EL223-9. PubMed ID: 17552573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Coherent Coding of Enhanced Interaural Cues Improves Sound Localization in Noise With Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Williges B; Jürgens T; Hu H; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518781746. PubMed ID: 29956589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Noise signal reduction in cochlear implant speech processors].
    Müller-Deile J
    HNO; 1995 Sep; 43(9):545-51. PubMed ID: 7591867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study.
    Finke M; Büchner A; Ruigendijk E; Meyer M; Sandmann P
    Neuropsychologia; 2016 Jul; 87():169-181. PubMed ID: 27212057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Acoustic simulation of cochlear implant hearing: Effect of manipulating various acoustic parameters on intelligibility of speech.
    Jain S; Vipin Ghosh PG
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 Jan; 19(1):46-53. PubMed ID: 29032744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The design and validation of a hybrid digital-signal-processing plug-in for traditional cochlear implant speech processors.
    Hajiaghababa F; Marateb HR; Kermani S
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2018 Jun; 159():103-109. PubMed ID: 29650304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
    Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A novel speech-processing strategy incorporating tonal information for cochlear implants.
    Lan N; Nie KB; Gao SK; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 May; 51(5):752-60. PubMed ID: 15132501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of directional microphone and adaptive multichannel noise reduction algorithm on cochlear implant performance.
    Chung K; Zeng FG; Acker KN
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Oct; 120(4):2216-27. PubMed ID: 17069317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Acoustic and semantic enhancements for children with cochlear implants.
    Smiljanic R; Sladen D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 56(4):1085-96. PubMed ID: 23785186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC; Pogue J; Milrany T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(7):501-9. PubMed ID: 22992257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise.
    Nie K; Stickney G; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2005 Jan; 52(1):64-73. PubMed ID: 15651565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The performance of different synthesis signals in acoustic models of cochlear implants.
    Strydom T; Hanekom JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Feb; 129(2):920-33. PubMed ID: 21361449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.