143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20815463)
1. Effects of introducing low-frequency harmonics in the perception of vocoded telephone speech.
Hu Y; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1280-9. PubMed ID: 20815463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.
Chen F; Loizou PC
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 20081538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A simulation study of harmonics regeneration in noise reduction for electric and acoustic stimulation.
Hu Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3145-53. PubMed ID: 21117763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Human Frequency Following Responses to Vocoded Speech.
Ananthakrishnan S; Luo X; Krishnan A
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e256-e267. PubMed ID: 28362674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech.
Chen F; Loizou PC
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):331-8. PubMed ID: 21206363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Improved perception of speech in noise and Mandarin tones with acoustic simulations of harmonic coding for cochlear implants.
Li X; Nie K; Imennov NS; Won JH; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT; Atlas LE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3387-98. PubMed ID: 23145619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.
Stilp C; Donaldson G; Oh S; Kong YY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Nov; 140(5):3971. PubMed ID: 27908030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of low harmonics on tone identification in natural and vocoded speech.
Liu C; Azimi B; Tahmina Q; Hu Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):EL378-84. PubMed ID: 23145698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. On the importance of preserving the harmonics and neighboring partials prior to vocoder processing: implications for cochlear implants.
Hu Y; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jan; 127(1):427-34. PubMed ID: 20058988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences.
Stilp CE; Goupell MJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):844-55. PubMed ID: 25698018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
Gifford RH; Stecker GC
Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
Whitmal NA; DeMaio D; Lin R
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The perception of telephone-processed speech by combined electric and acoustic stimulation.
Hu Y; Tahmina Q; Runge C; Friedland DR
Trends Amplif; 2013; 17(3):189-96. PubMed ID: 24265213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A model-based analysis of the "combined-stimulation advantage".
Seldran F; Micheyl C; Truy E; Berger-Vachon C; Thai-Van H; Gallego S
Hear Res; 2011 Dec; 282(1-2):252-64. PubMed ID: 21801823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
