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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21682359)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
    Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
    Yang HI; Zeng FG
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of Within-Talker Variability on Speech Intelligibility in Mandarin-Speaking Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implant Patients.
    Su Q; Galvin JJ; Zhang G; Li Y; Fu QJ
    Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27363714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1615-24. PubMed ID: 23464031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Validation of list equivalency for Mandarin speech materials to use with cochlear implant listeners.
    Li Y; Wang S; Su Q; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S31-S40. PubMed ID: 27414242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Yoon YS; Li Y; Kang HY; Fu QJ
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):554-65. PubMed ID: 21696329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hu Y; Kokkinakis K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL22-8. PubMed ID: 24437852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ; Kluender KR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):EL136-41. PubMed ID: 23363194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech rate, rate-matching, and intelligibility in early-implanted cochlear implant users.
    Freeman V; Pisoni DB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Aug; 142(2):1043. PubMed ID: 28863583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L).
    Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1099-102. PubMed ID: 21895052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.
    Croghan NBH; Duran SI; Smith ZM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Dec; 142(6):EL537. PubMed ID: 29289062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants.
    Hazrati O; Lee J; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1607-14. PubMed ID: 23464030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of speaking rate on recognition of synthetic and natural speech by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Ji C; Galvin JJ; Xu A; Fu QJ
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 23238527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.
    Carroll J; Tiaden S; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2054-62. PubMed ID: 21973360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.