223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21568376)
1. Use of intonation contours for speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant recipients.
Meister H; Landwehr M; Pyschny V; Grugel L; Walger M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 May; 129(5):EL204-9. PubMed ID: 21568376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ
J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
Peng SC; Tomblin JB; Turner CW
Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience.
Whitmal NA; Poissant SF; Freyman RL; Helfer KS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2376-88. PubMed ID: 17902872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.
Cullington HE; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
Jin SH; Nie Y; Nelson P
Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy.
Zeng FG; Liu S
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):367-80. PubMed ID: 16671850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences.
Stickney GS; Assmann PF; Chang J; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1069-78. PubMed ID: 17672654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients.
Dawson PW; Mauger SJ; Hersbach AA
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):382-90. PubMed ID: 21206365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The perception of sentence stress in cochlear implant recipients.
Meister H; Landwehr M; Pyschny V; Wagner P; Walger M
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):459-67. PubMed ID: 21187749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Perception of suprasegmental speech features via bimodal stimulation: cochlear implant on one ear and hearing aid on the other.
Most T; Harel T; Shpak T; Luntz M
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Apr; 54(2):668-78. PubMed ID: 20844254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Use of a sigmoidal-shaped function for noise attenuation in cochlear implants.
Hu Y; Loizou PC; Li N; Kasturi K
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):EL128-34. PubMed ID: 17902741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ten-year follow-up of a consecutive series of children with multichannel cochlear implants.
Uziel AS; Sillon M; Vieu A; Artieres F; Piron JP; Daures JP; Mondain M
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):615-28. PubMed ID: 17667770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception.
Lorenzi C; Husson M; Ardoint M; Debruille X
Int J Audiol; 2006 Sep; 45(9):487-95. PubMed ID: 17005491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
Kwon BJ; Perry TT; Wilhelm CL; Healy EW
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Apr; 131(4):3111-9. PubMed ID: 22501084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners.
Peng SC; Lu N; Chatterjee M
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(5):327-37. PubMed ID: 19372651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
