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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20815463)

  • 21. Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.
    Li N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1262-71. PubMed ID: 20815461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Contribution of low-frequency harmonics to Mandarin Chinese tone identification in quiet and six-talker babble background.
    Liu C; Azimi B; Bhandary M; Hu Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):428-38. PubMed ID: 24437783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. The effects of binaural spectral resolution mismatch on Mandarin speech perception in simulated electric hearing.
    Chen F; Wong LL; Tahmina Q; Azimi B; Hu Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL142-8. PubMed ID: 22894313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.
    Dorman MF; Gifford RH
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Dec; 49(12):912-9. PubMed ID: 20874053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Simulation of speech perception with cochlear implants : Influence of frequency and level of fundamental frequency components with electronic acoustic stimulation].
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):237-242. PubMed ID: 27670421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech.
    Başkent D; Chatterjee M
    Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):127-33. PubMed ID: 20817081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance?
    Mulhern L; Cullington H
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Mar; 15(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 24597637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Frequency specificity of amplitude envelope patterns in noise-vocoded speech.
    Ueda K; Araki T; Nakajima Y
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():169-181. PubMed ID: 29929750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region.
    Stone MA; Füllgrabe C; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Oct; 124(4):2272-82. PubMed ID: 19062865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.
    Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():113-23. PubMed ID: 24368138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Noise and pitch interact during the cortical segregation of concurrent speech.
    Bidelman GM; Yellamsetty A
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():34-44. PubMed ID: 28578876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of Temporal Envelope Cutoff Frequency, Number of Channels, and Carrier Type on Brainstem Neural Representation of Pitch in Vocoded Speech.
    Ananthakrishnan S; Luo X
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2022 Aug; 65(8):3146-3164. PubMed ID: 35944032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Speech perception in noise with a harmonic complex excited vocoder.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Ihlefeld A; Litovsky RY
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2014 Apr; 15(2):265-78. PubMed ID: 24448721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.
    Qin MK; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Apr; 119(4):2417-26. PubMed ID: 16642854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Pupillometry Reveals That Context Benefit in Speech Perception Can Be Disrupted by Later-Occurring Sounds, Especially in Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
    Winn MB; Moore AN
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518808962. PubMed ID: 30375282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Pulse-spreading harmonic complex as an alternative carrier for vocoder simulations of cochlear implants.
    Mesnildrey Q; Hilkhuysen G; Macherey O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):986-91. PubMed ID: 26936577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.