335 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21696330)
21. Concurrent-vowel and tone recognition by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.
Luo X; Fu QJ; Wu HP; Hsu CJ
Hear Res; 2009 Oct; 256(1-2):75-84. PubMed ID: 19595753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.
Won JH; Jones GL; Drennan WR; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2088-97. PubMed ID: 21973363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Voice gender and the segregation of competing talkers: Perceptual learning in cochlear implant simulations.
Sullivan JR; Assmann PF; Hossain S; Schafer EC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1643. PubMed ID: 28372046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. The Lombard effect observed in speech produced by cochlear implant users in noisy environments: A naturalistic study.
Lee J; Ali H; Ziaei A; Tobey EA; Hansen JHL
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2788. PubMed ID: 28464686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification.
Cullington HE; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2011 Feb; 32(1):16-30. PubMed ID: 21178567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
Whitmal NA; DeMaio D; Lin R
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Voice emotion recognition by cochlear-implanted children and their normally-hearing peers.
Chatterjee M; Zion DJ; Deroche ML; Burianek BA; Limb CJ; Goren AP; Kulkarni AM; Christensen JA
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():151-62. PubMed ID: 25448167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users.
Gnansia D; Lazard DS; Léger AC; Fugain C; Lancelin D; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):48-54. PubMed ID: 24195655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Perception of pure tones and iterated rippled noise for normal hearing and cochlear implant users.
Penninger RT; Chien WW; Jiradejvong P; Boeke E; Carver CL; Limb CJ
Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 23539260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users.
Jones GL; Won JH; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):425-33. PubMed ID: 23297914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Bologna WJ; Dubno JR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.
Holden LK; Reeder RM; Firszt JB; Finley CC
Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):255-69. PubMed ID: 21275500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Lexical tone recognition in noise in normal-hearing children and prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.
Mao Y; Xu L
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S23-S30. PubMed ID: 27564095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
