170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23464031)
1. Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1615-24. PubMed ID: 23464031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants.
Hazrati O; Lee J; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1607-14. PubMed ID: 23464030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Voice gender differences and separation of simultaneous talkers in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
Visram AS; Kluk K; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL135-41. PubMed ID: 22894312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.
Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():113-23. PubMed ID: 24368138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
Yousefian N; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
