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 *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22280603)

  • 21. Potential Benefits of an Integrated Electric-Acoustic Sound Processor with Children: A Preliminary Report.
    Wolfe J; Neumann S; Schafer E; Marsh M; Wood M; Baker RS
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Feb; 28(2):127-140. PubMed ID: 28240980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.
    Tejani VD; Brown CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3667. PubMed ID: 32486815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
    Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.
    Chen F; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 20081538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion. A longitudinal case study.
    Kleine Punte A; Vermeire K; Van de Heyning P
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():144-152. PubMed ID: 19955731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone.
    Brown CA; Bacon SP
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):489-93. PubMed ID: 19546806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. USING MACHINE LEARNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF REVERBERATION AND NOISE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
    Chu KM; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Proc Meet Acoust; 2018 May; 33(1):. PubMed ID: 32582407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Perceived listening effort and speech intelligibility in reverberation and noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Schepker H; Haeder K; Rennies J; Holube I
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Dec; 55(12):738-747. PubMed ID: 27627181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms.
    Whitmal NA; Poissant SF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2556-69. PubMed ID: 19894835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
    Dillon MT; O'Connell BP; Canfarotta MW; Buss E; Hopfinger J
    Am J Audiol; 2022 Jun; 31(2):322-337. PubMed ID: 35394798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Role of binaural hearing in speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking using vocoded speech.
    Garadat SN; Litovsky RY; Yu G; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2522-35. PubMed ID: 19894832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.
    Sheffield BM; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):518-30. PubMed ID: 22280613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of contextual cues on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Kong YY; Donaldson G; Somarowthu A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2846-57. PubMed ID: 25994712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Top-Down Processes in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Hearing: The Effect of Linguistic Context on Bimodal Benefit for Temporally Interrupted Speech.
    Oh SH; Donaldson GS; Kong YY
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 27007220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Interactions Between Digital Noise Reduction and Reverberation: Acoustic and Behavioral Effects.
    Reinhart P; Zahorik P; Souza P
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jan; 31(1):17-29. PubMed ID: 31267958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Improving the Intelligibility of Speech for Simulated Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Using Fully Convolutional Neural Networks.
    Wang NY; Wang HS; Wang TW; Fu SW; Lu X; Wang HM; Tsao Y
    IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng; 2021; 29():184-195. PubMed ID: 33275585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech.
    Chen F; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):331-8. PubMed ID: 21206363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Revisiting perceptual compensation for effects of reverberation in speech identification.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Nov; 128(5):3088-94. PubMed ID: 21110604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effect of overlap-masking on binaural reverberant word intelligibility.
    Libbey B; Rogers PH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Nov; 116(5):3141-51. PubMed ID: 15603159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.