BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

585 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23429419)

  • 1. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Goldsworthy RL; Delhorne LA; Braida LD; Reed CM
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 23429419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
    Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.
    Goldsworthy RL
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Dec; 16(6):797-809. PubMed ID: 26373936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
    Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Phatak SA; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
    Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.
    Lamping W; Goehring T; Marozeau J; Carlyon RP
    Hear Res; 2020 Jun; 391():107969. PubMed ID: 32320925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.
    Bhattacharya A; Vandali A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2951-60. PubMed ID: 22087923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
    Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Formant frequency discrimination with a fine structure sound coding strategy for cochlear implants.
    Liepins R; Kaider A; Honeder C; Auinger AB; Dahm V; Riss D; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2020 Jul; 392():107970. PubMed ID: 32339775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 30.