363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21206363)
21. 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]
22. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release.
Croghan NBH; Smith ZM
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Listeners Experience Linguistic Masking Release in Noise-Vocoded Speech-in-Speech Recognition.
Viswanathan N; Kokkinakis K; Williams BT
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Feb; 61(2):428-435. PubMed ID: 29396580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
Koning R; Wouters J
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
Jørgensen S; Dau T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
Stickney GS; Zeng FG; Litovsky R; Assmann P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Objective intelligibility measurement of reverberant vocoded speech for normal-hearing listeners: Towards facilitating the development of speech enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.
Shahidi LK; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Mar; 155(3):2151-2168. PubMed ID: 38501923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
Nelson PB; Jin SH; Carney AE; Nelson DA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Feb; 113(2):961-8. PubMed ID: 12597189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. The Effect of Interaural Mismatches on Contralateral Unmasking With Single-Sided Vocoders.
Wess JM; Brungart DS; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(3):374-386. PubMed ID: 28002083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparable Encoding, Comparable Perceptual Pattern: Acoustic and Electric Hearing.
Kong F; Zhou H; Mo Y; Shi M; Meng Q; Zheng N
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng; 2023; 31():2326-2337. PubMed ID: 37159306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. SNR Loss: A new objective measure for predicting speech intelligibility of noise-suppressed speech.
Ma J; Loizou PC
Speech Commun; 2011 Mar; 53(3):340-354. PubMed ID: 21503274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners.
Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Oct; 17(5):475-91. PubMed ID: 27090115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
