155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18247772)
1. Within- and across-channel gap detection in cochlear implant listeners.
Grose JH; Buss E
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Dec; 122(6):3651-8. PubMed ID: 18247772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Boyd PJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Development of a large-item environmental sound test and the effects of short-term training with spectrally-degraded stimuli.
Shafiro V
Ear Hear; 2008 Oct; 29(5):775-90. PubMed ID: 18596641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: speech intelligibility and music sound quality.
Magnusson L
Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):279-87. PubMed ID: 21190508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of age and hearing loss on gap detection and the precedence effect: narrow-band stimuli.
Lister JJ; Roberts RA
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 48(2):482-93. PubMed ID: 15989406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Results with a cochlear implant channel-picking strategy based on "Selected Groups".
Kals M; Schatzer R; Krenmayr A; Vermeire K; Visser D; Bader P; Neustetter C; Zangerl M; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2010 Feb; 260(1-2):63-9. PubMed ID: 19944138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Duration discrimination in listeners with cochlear hearing loss: effects of stimulus type and frequency.
Grose JH; Hall JW; Buss E
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Feb; 47(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 15072523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The adaptive pattern of the late auditory evoked potential elicited by repeated stimuli in cochlear implant users.
Zhang F; Anderson J; Samy R; Houston L
Int J Audiol; 2010 Apr; 49(4):277-85. PubMed ID: 20151878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.
Baumann U; Nobbe A
Hear Res; 2006 Mar; 213(1-2):34-42. PubMed ID: 16442249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The psychoacoustics of profound hearing impairment.
Rosen S; Faulkner A; Smith DA
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():16-22. PubMed ID: 2356723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interaural time and level difference thresholds for acoustically presented signals in post-lingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants using CIS+ processing.
Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 18091105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation.
Looi V; Winter P; Anderson I; Sucher C
Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):503-18. PubMed ID: 21689048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identification of environmental sounds with varying spectral resolution.
Shafiro V
Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):401-20. PubMed ID: 18344871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users.
Vaerenberg B; Govaerts PJ; de Ceulaer G; Daemers K; Schauwers K
Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 21091083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of age on silent gap discrimination in synthetic speech stimuli.
Lister J; Tarver K
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):257-68. PubMed ID: 15157128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Binaural interference in bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.
Best V; Laback B; Majdak P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2939-50. PubMed ID: 22087922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners.
Saoji AA; Litvak L; Spahr AJ; Eddins DA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Sep; 126(3):955-8. PubMed ID: 19739707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Electrical field imaging as a means to predict the loudness of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implant patients.
Berenstein CK; Vanpoucke FJ; Mulder JJ; Mens LH
Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):28-38. PubMed ID: 20946945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Electroaudiometry with cochlear implant in children with inner ear anomaly.
Takanami T; Ito K; Yamasoba T; Kaga K
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2009 Jan; 73(1):153-8. PubMed ID: 19042035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
