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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21786906)

  • 1. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.
    Won JH; Drennan WR; Nie K; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):376-88. PubMed ID: 21786906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.
    Anderson ES; Oxenham AJ; Nelson PB; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):3925-34. PubMed ID: 23231122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing.
    Chatterjee M; Oberzut C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1567-80. PubMed ID: 21895095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The ability of cochlear implant users to use temporal envelope cues recovered from speech frequency modulation.
    Won JH; Lorenzi C; Nie K; Li X; Jameyson EM; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1113-9. PubMed ID: 22894230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Voice gender discrimination provides a measure of more than pitch-related perception in cochlear implant users.
    Li T; Fu QJ
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):498-502. PubMed ID: 21696330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues.
    Fraser M; McKay CM
    Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):59-69. PubMed ID: 22146425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Perception of stochastic envelopes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Gomersall PA; Turner RE; Baguley DM; Deeks JM; Gockel HE; Carlyon RP
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():8-24. PubMed ID: 26706708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Simulating electrical modulation detection thresholds using a biophysical model of the auditory nerve.
    O'Brien GE; Imennov NS; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2448. PubMed ID: 27250141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Anderson ES; Nelson DA; Kreft H; Nelson PB; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):364-75. PubMed ID: 21786905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.