588 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23429419)
21. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.
Yoon YS; Li Y; Kang HY; Fu QJ
Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):554-65. PubMed ID: 21696329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.
Hu Y; Kokkinakis K
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL22-8. PubMed ID: 24437852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices.
Kokkinakis K; Pak N
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL47-53. PubMed ID: 24437856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
Yang HI; Zeng FG
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Clinical assessment of spectral modulation detection for adult cochlear implant recipients: a non-language based measure of performance outcomes.
Gifford RH; Hedley-Williams A; Spahr AJ
Int J Audiol; 2014 Mar; 53(3):159-64. PubMed ID: 24456178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The relative importance of consonant and vowel segments to the recognition of words and sentences: effects of age and hearing loss.
Fogerty D; Kewley-Port D; Humes LE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1667-78. PubMed ID: 22978895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Improving speech-in-noise recognition for children with hearing loss: potential effects of language abilities, binaural summation, and head shadow.
Nittrouer S; Caldwell-Tarr A; Tarr E; Lowenstein JH; Rice C; Moberly AC
Int J Audiol; 2013 Aug; 52(8):513-25. PubMed ID: 23834373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability.
Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; D'Aquila LA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4452. PubMed ID: 28679277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Bologna WJ; Dubno JR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of age and hearing mechanism on spectral resolution in normal hearing and cochlear-implanted listeners.
Horn DL; Dudley DJ; Dedhia K; Nie K; Drennan WR; Won JH; Rubinstein JT; Werner LA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jan; 141(1):613. PubMed ID: 28147578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.
Hazrati O; Sadjadi SO; Loizou PC; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):3759-65. PubMed ID: 24180786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
