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 *

267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22569838)

  • 21. Perceptually aligning apical frequency regions leads to more binaural fusion of speech in a cochlear implant simulation.
    Staisloff HE; Lee DH; Aronoff JM
    Hear Res; 2016 Jul; 337():59-64. PubMed ID: 27208791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.
    Sheffield SW; Goupell MJ; Spencer NJ; Stakhovskaya OA; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):576-590. PubMed ID: 31436754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Role of contextual cues on the perception of spectrally reduced interrupted speech.
    Patro C; Mendel LL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Aug; 140(2):1336. PubMed ID: 27586760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Meta-Analysis on the Identification of Linguistic and Emotional Prosody in Cochlear Implant Users and Vocoder Simulations.
    Everhardt MK; Sarampalis A; Coler M; Başkent D; Lowie W
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1092-1102. PubMed ID: 32251011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps.
    Stafford RC; Stafford JW; Wells JD; Loizou PC; Keller MD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):262-70. PubMed ID: 24322978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.
    Stilp C; Donaldson G; Oh S; Kong YY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Nov; 140(5):3971. PubMed ID: 27908030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Frontotemporal activation differs between perception of simulated cochlear implant speech and speech in background noise: An image-based fNIRS study.
    Defenderfer J; Forbes S; Wijeakumar S; Hedrick M; Plyler P; Buss AT
    Neuroimage; 2021 Oct; 240():118385. PubMed ID: 34256138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.
    Jaekel BN; Weinstein S; Newman RS; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 May; 151(5):2898. PubMed ID: 35649892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users.
    Jaekel BN; Weinstein S; Newman RS; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Mar; 149(3):1488. PubMed ID: 33765790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners.
    Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Oct; 17(5):475-91. PubMed ID: 27090115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release.
    Croghan NBH; Smith ZM
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):844-55. PubMed ID: 25698018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation.
    Zhang T; Spahr AJ; Dorman MF
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 19915474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.