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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23742370)

  • 21. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone.
    Brown CA; Bacon SP
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):489-93. PubMed ID: 19546806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.
    Helms Tillery K; Brown CA; Bacon SP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):416-23. PubMed ID: 22280603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations.
    Poissant SF; Whitmal NA; Freyman RL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1606-15. PubMed ID: 16583905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Noise signal reduction in cochlear implant speech processors].
    Müller-Deile J
    HNO; 1995 Sep; 43(9):545-51. PubMed ID: 7591867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. USING AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION AND SPEECH SYNTHESIS TO IMPROVE THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERS IN REVERBERANT LISTENING ENVIRONMENTS.
    Chu K; Collins L; Mainsah B
    Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process; 2020 May; 2020():6929-6933. PubMed ID: 33078056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. USING MACHINE LEARNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF REVERBERATION AND NOISE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
    Chu KM; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Proc Meet Acoust; 2018 May; 33(1):. PubMed ID: 32582407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults.
    Wróblewski M; Lewis DE; Valente DL; Stelmachowicz PG
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(6):731-44. PubMed ID: 22732772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Speech intelligibility in reverberation with ideal binary masking: effects of early reflections and signal-to-noise ratio threshold.
    Roman N; Woodruff J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1707-17. PubMed ID: 23464040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Objective intelligibility measurement of reverberant vocoded speech for normal-hearing listeners: Towards facilitating the development of speech enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.
    Shahidi LK; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Mar; 155(3):2151-2168. PubMed ID: 38501923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Elderly listeners with low intelligibility scores under reverberation show degraded subcortical representation of reverberant speech.
    Fujihira H; Shiraishi K; Remijn GB
    Neurosci Lett; 2017 Jan; 637():102-107. PubMed ID: 27884735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Binaural prediction of speech intelligibility in reverberant rooms with multiple noise sources.
    Lavandier M; Jelfs S; Culling JF; Watkins AJ; Raimond AP; Makin SJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):218-31. PubMed ID: 22280586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies II: Speech Intelligibility of Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.
    Baumgärtel RM; Hu H; Krawczyk-Becker M; Marquardt D; Herzke T; Coleman G; Adiloğlu K; Bomke K; Plotz K; Gerkmann T; Doclo S; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reverberation negatively impacts musical sound quality for cochlear implant users.
    Roy AT; Vigeant M; Munjal T; Carver C; Jiradejvong P; Limb CJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S105-13. PubMed ID: 26561881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.