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 *

235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21117762)

  • 41. Voice gender differences and separation of simultaneous talkers in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
    Visram AS; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL135-41. PubMed ID: 22894312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Perceived sound quality of different signal processing algorithms by cochlear implant listeners in real-world acoustic environments.
    Chung K
    J Commun Disord; 2020; 83():105973. PubMed ID: 31901876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Impact of a moving noise masker on speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Weissgerber T; Rader T; Baumann U
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0126133. PubMed ID: 25970594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices.
    Kokkinakis K; Pak N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL47-53. PubMed ID: 24437856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.
    Bhattacharya A; Vandali A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2951-60. PubMed ID: 22087923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Impact of room acoustic parameters on speech and music perception among participants with cochlear implants.
    Eurich B; Klenzner T; Oehler M
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():122-132. PubMed ID: 30933704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.
    Sheffield SW; Goupell MJ; Spencer NJ; Stakhovskaya OA; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):576-590. PubMed ID: 31436754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
    Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.
    Brochier T; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4097. PubMed ID: 28618807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
    Sagi E; Svirsky MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Speech Understanding and Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Listeners Using a Pinna-Effect Imitating Microphone and an Adaptive Beamformer.
    Dorman MF; Natale S; Loiselle L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Mar; 29(3):197-205. PubMed ID: 29488870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effects of speaking style on speech intelligibility for Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.
    Li Y; Zhang G; Kang HY; Liu S; Han D; Fu QJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):EL242-7. PubMed ID: 21682359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Acoustic cue integration in speech intonation recognition with cochlear implants.
    Peng SC; Chatterjee M; Lu N
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Jun; 16(2):67-82. PubMed ID: 22790392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A Binaural Cochlear Implant Sound Coding Strategy Inspired by the Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Reflex.
    Lopez-Poveda EA; Eustaquio-Martín A; Stohl JS; Wolford RD; Schatzer R; Wilson BS
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):e138-48. PubMed ID: 26862711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Stream segregation on a single electrode as a function of pulse rate in cochlear implant listeners.
    Duran SI; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):3849-55. PubMed ID: 23231115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.