209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22559376)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. Longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.
Zhou N
Int J Audiol; 2019 Sep; 58(9):587-597. PubMed ID: 31012771
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Beneficial acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users with residual acoustic hearing.
Visram AS; Azadpour M; Kluk K; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 May; 131(5):4042-50. PubMed ID: 22559377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
Mens LH; Berenstein CK
Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Amplitude-mapping effects on speech intelligibility with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants.
van Hoesel R; Böhm M; Battmer RD; Beckschebe J; Lenarz T
Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):381-8. PubMed ID: 16079633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners.
Chatterjee M; Oba SI
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Dec; 5(4):360-75. PubMed ID: 15675001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Electromagnetic versus electrical coupling of personal frequency modulation (FM) receivers to cochlear implant sound processors.
Schafer EC; Romine D; Musgrave E; Momin S; Huynh C
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):927-40. PubMed ID: 24384079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.
van Hoesel RJ; Tyler RS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Mar; 113(3):1617-30. PubMed ID: 12656396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.
Shannon RV; Cruz RJ; Galvin JJ
Audiol Neurootol; 2011; 16(2):113-23. PubMed ID: 20639631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Temporal Modulation Detection Depends on Sharpness of Spatial Tuning.
Zhou N; Cadmus M; Dong L; Mathews J
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Jun; 19(3):317-330. PubMed ID: 29696448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
Zeng FG; Galvin JJ
Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 10037066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.
Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing.
Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94. PubMed ID: 12703719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition.
Pfingst BE; Xu L; Thompson CS
Audiol Neurootol; 2004; 9(6):341-52. PubMed ID: 15467287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Relationship between gap detection thresholds and loudness in cochlear-implant users.
Garadat SN; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2011 May; 275(1-2):130-8. PubMed ID: 21168479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users.
Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Sep; 6(3):269-79. PubMed ID: 16075190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Auditory detection and discrimination in deaf cats: psychophysical and neural thresholds for intracochlear electrical signals.
Vollmer M; Beitel RE; Snyder RL
J Neurophysiol; 2001 Nov; 86(5):2330-43. PubMed ID: 11698523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
